Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

European Union Constitutional Treaty

Robert Goodwill: If she will make a statement on the future of the European Union constitutional treaty.

Margaret Beckett: There is no current consensus on the way forward for the constitutional treaty. The June European Council agreed that the German presidency will present a report to the European Council in 2007, based on extensive consultations with the member states. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will make a statement shortly on the broad principles underpinning our approach.

Robert Goodwill: The EU is often critical of other countries that act in an undemocratic way. Given that the constitutional treaty is dead in the water after being torpedoed by France and Holland, what is the justification for the Commission pressing on regardless with the external action service—the EU's diplomatic service, which also has its own embassies—and the External Borders Agency? What is the legal basis for those budget lines?

Margaret Beckett: I understand the desire among Conservative Members to see this issue dead and buried, but a number of member states have ratified the treaty. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that two member states have rejected it after referendums, and that is a difficulty. All member states are considering the way forward.

Mark Lazarowicz: Yesterday, hon. Members across the Chamber welcomed the Stern report, one of whose conclusions was that action at European level was needed to tackle climate change. Does that not emphasise the need for the sort of reform and streamlining of European procedures and institutions that will allow us to meet that urgent task?

Margaret Beckett: The two legitimate and equally good points that my hon. Friend makes are not necessarily related. Like him, I welcome yesterday's report and discussions but the EU has played a leading role in matters to do with climate change without changing its structures or how it operates. I am confident that the EU, whatever its structures, will continue to play a positive role in a matter in which, as a group of member states, it has a deserved reputation.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) has just said that the European constitution was dead in the water, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that any European court that refers to the charter of fundamental rights would be acting ultra vires—beyond its legal powers?

Margaret Beckett: I am not a lawyer, so I am always cautious about a phrase like "refers to". Although the hon. Gentleman is right that the charter does not have force, the question whether anyone would be allowed to refer to it is quite another matter.

Denis MacShane: I want to raise another technical point with my right hon. Friend. As I understand it, under the existing treaties, the present Commission has to be reduced to 15 after 2009.  [Interruption.] The lights are going out in England. [Hon. Members: "Next!"] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I shall try and switch myself off. After 2009, in addition to losing the services of Mr. Peter Mandelson, which I know that the whole House will regret, we may find that we are not able to nominate a Commissioner from the UK. In other words, we will have no representation on the Commission. This is a technical, juridical point, so I realise that my right hon. Friend may not be able to answer today, but will she write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library? This is a very important matter, as we may need a new treaty.

Margaret Beckett: I always prefer to write to hon. Members about technical and juridical matters, but I think that my right hon. Friend is leaping several steps ahead. Existing treaties do require us to take another look at the Commission's size after Bulgaria and Romania join the EU, but I am sure that he will find that all member states will take a keen interest in how many Commissioners there will be after then, and what their responsibilities will be.

Graham Brady: The Foreign Secretary says that there is no consensus about the future of the constitution, but two weeks ago she told EU Foreign Ministers that it was a grandiose project that had failed. If she was prepared to say that to them, why will she not repeat it in this House? Will she tell us what she believes, and make it clear whether the Government intend to proceed with ratifying the treaty?

Margaret Beckett: There is no intention to proceed with that at the moment because, as I said, there is no consensus. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is drawing on press reports, but he is not entirely correct, as I made those remarks to the media and not to EU Foreign Ministers. [ Interruption.] I am about to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I was being asked whether the UK believed that the treaty was completely dead, and so on—the sort of questions that are raised continually in this House. I said that one of the EU's perceived weaknesses, across a range of matters, was that people involved in it sometimes had grandiose projects, and that those projects fail when they become too elaborate. However, I was not speaking specifically about the constitutional treaty.

Uganda

Kerry McCarthy: If she will make a statement on the political situation in northern Uganda.

Kim Howells: The political situation in northern Uganda remains fragile. We welcome the progress made so far at the Juba talks. The Lord's Resistance Army—the LRA—and the Government of Uganda must now maintain their commitment, show restraint, and implement agreements reached to date. Only then will there be a solution that brings long overdue peace and justice to the people of northern Uganda.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. What is the Government's view on the representation of the Acholi people in those talks? Are the Government prepared to fund technical assistance, or give other support, to ensure that community voices are heard during those discussions?

Kim Howells: Yes. Up to 2 million Acholi people are still in dreadful displaced people's camps because they will not go home until the Lord's Resistance Army stops killing them and abducting their children. Uganda has a plan for such a moment, but it has not been tested yet. We shall certainly do everything that we can to assist in that peace process.

Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the Minister's comments that the British Government will do all that they can to assist the peace process. However, does he acknowledge that, if we manage to secure peace in northern Uganda, aid will still be required to redevelop and re-establish the land, so we need to ensure that the international community, which is currently putting in $200 million a year in aid, redirects that money for development, and that it goes to northern Uganda and is not diverted elsewhere?

Kim Howells: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. The situation in northern Uganda is so desperate that, even though there are very worthy potential recipients of any aid in southern and eastern Uganda, all the money that is set aside must end up going on trying to reconcile the situation in the north, and on redeveloping and rebuilding the infrastructure, because it is badly in need of that.

Andy Reed: I welcome the Government's response to what are truly dreadful circumstances in northern Uganda. In view of the belief of some commentators that the threat of International Criminal Court action is delaying the peace process, what does my hon. Friend envisage in terms of reconciliation and those people who have perpetrated what are probably some of the worst acts of this century? Does he see a role for that in attempting to bring the two sides together in the near future?

Kim Howells: I certainly agree that the way forward is reconciliation. There will not be a military solution. We must try to bring all sides together. However, we as a Government cannot resile from the position that we have taken, which is that there must be no impunity for the war criminals. That is absolutely vital; the crimes that they have committed are horrendous. I also do not believe for one minute that we would have seen any progress if there had not been the threat that international action would be taken in the ICC against the leading individuals in the Lord's Resistance Army.

North Korea

Bob Neill: What recent discussions she has had with the US Secretary of State on North Korea.

Margaret Beckett: I have spoken to the US Secretary of State on a number of occasions over the past few months on the handling of North Korea, including in the wake of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's claimed nuclear test. We agreed that the test was a clear threat to international peace and security, and that there must be—as there has been—a robust response from the United Nations Security Council. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that it has just been announced that the DPRK will return to the six-party talks.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response, but given that there is a long and well-documented history of North Korea illicitly obtaining nuclear material and exporting weapons systems that it has developed, can she give us further information on what will be done to enforce the embargo requirements of the United Nations resolution if North Korea does not come up to scratch at the talks? In particular, what will be the United Kingdom's role? Will any Royal Navy assets be involved, for example?

Margaret Beckett: We are not at present in a position to answer that—and especially the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as he will appreciate. Obviously, everyone will now have to assess what the new position is, but I think that the whole House will take some comfort and reassurance from the fact that North Korea has decided to return to the six-party talks.

David Taylor: When the Foreign Secretary next meets the US Secretary of State, will she ask what contribution it is thought is made to peace and stability by the flotilla of US nuclear-armed warships in the waters around Korea? Does she agree that a non-nuclear and reunified Korea is in the interests of all the people of that part of the world, and should not the US and other Governments withdraw troops and weapons at a very early date from the Korean peninsula?

Margaret Beckett: It is the wish of the international community to see de-nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. Although I understand the legitimate concern that lies behind my hon. Friend's question, we should recognise that it was pressure from the whole international community on North Korea that brought about this result.

Paul Keetch: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary was very pleased to hear the news from North Korea, and that the whole House hopes that it proves to be the case. But given that North Korea signed an armistice at the end of the Korean war with the United Nations, not the Republic of Korea, and that Great Britain holds the deputy command of the UN forces in South Korea, can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, following her discussions with the US Secretary of State, there will be no withdrawal of Britain's commitment to UN forces in South Korea as part of that role, which some in the Ministry of Defence would like to see happen?

Margaret Beckett: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman raises a rather different issue, but in the aftermath of the decision that has just been announced, everyone will be reassessing their involvement and addressing the question—properly raised by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—of where we go from here. But let us take at least a brief moment to say thank goodness that the six-party talks are on again.

Malcolm Rifkind: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite China's public lack of enthusiasm for sanctions, it has privately refused to sell a single tonne of crude oil to North Korea in the month of September and sold all its available crude oil to the United States? As that may have had a very impressive impact on Kim Jong Il, will she encourage China to continue that policy not just until North Korea returns to the talks, but until it abandons its nuclear aspirations?

Margaret Beckett: I am indeed aware of this issue and I have had a number of conversations with the Chinese Foreign Minister on exactly that. He has always assured me not only that China takes this issue just as seriously as the rest of us, but that it was doing everything that it could to put and maintain pressure on North Korea. We should all welcome China's behaviour in this respect as a member of the international community—sharing and exerting its responsibilities.

Bulgaria/Romania

Keith Vaz: When she next plans to meet the Foreign Ministers of Bulgaria and Romania to discuss EU enlargement.

Margaret Beckett: Both my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and I have met the Bulgarian and Romanian Foreign Ministers on a number of occasions; indeed, I met the latter only yesterday. We expect next to meet them during normal EU business at Council meetings.

Keith Vaz: How much damage to Britain's reputation as a champion of enlargement has been done by the Home Office's decision to impose restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians when they join the European Union? I appreciate that both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe are reported as being opposed to the proposals, which are unworkable, unmanageable and unnecessary. How long after 1 January 2007 will those proposals be reviewed?

Margaret Beckett: I discussed this issue at some length with the Romanian Foreign Minister yesterday. He told me that although there was naturally some concern, Britain's reputation as a partner and friend of Romania is so strong—as a result of the efforts of successive Ministers in my Department over many years—that this issue is not enough to make a difference, and that it remains the case that Romania views Britain as one of its strongest allies and closest friends. It has been decided that the labour market will be opened gradually, and that the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a day or so ago will be reviewed after a year. I cannot give my right hon. Friend a precise date now, but I can assure him that that review will be very careful and thorough, as the House would wish.

Anthony Steen: I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary discussed with the Romanian Foreign Secretary the hideous activities of the criminal gangs that work in Romania and Bulgaria and traffic human beings out of those countries and into western Europe. What steps can she or the Government take to help Romania and Bulgaria to stop the waves of people coming over from Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, as well as Turkey, into this country? The trafficking of human beings is a major problem and I should like to hear what she has to say.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that it is a major problem, and we are giving a great deal of assistance, support and advice to both Romania and Bulgaria in tackling those issues; but as he knows, successive Governments have taken the view that one of the merits of enlargement is to raise standards in the applicant countries, and then as they become new-member countries, in a way that will begin to tackle some of the problems at source. I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's remarks; it is still a serious issue, but I can assure him that the authorities in Bulgaria and Romania are striving to tackle it and are doing so with help from us.

Don Touhig: Everyone's Child—Romania is a charity based in my constituency that does wonderful work supporting 70 children with HIV/AIDS in that country. Will my right hon. Friend give the House a progress report on how Romania is reforming its child care services as a condition of joining the European Union?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot volunteer at this moment to give my right hon. Friend a great many details, but I can certainly assure him that we judge that Romania is indeed moving towards making progress on protecting the rights of children, and also with living conditions, and that it is now in line with UN texts. That work will continue and the improvement will, I believe, continue as Romania moves into full membership of the EU. I share my right hon. Friend's view that that is extremely important.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Foreign Secretary remind the Foreign Ministers of Bulgaria and Romania that under regulations passed by the House on 30 April all citizens of those countries will have unrestricted right of residence in this country from 1 January, so the only people who will be inconvenienced by the Government's proposed worker registration scheme are those who want openly to register as employees and pay tax? So why are the Government creating maximum ill will in those two applicant countries to minimum effect?

Margaret Beckett: I do not accept that we are creating maximum ill will, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) a moment ago. Indeed, I can tell the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that the Foreign Minister of Romania was clear yesterday that it is his opinion that there is not likely to be much flow of people into this country— [Interruption.] I can only tell the House that that is his opinion; he based it on people movement and labour movement flows over recent years. However, the position is one that we shall continue to monitor, which is the reason for the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a few days ago.

Ian Davidson: Following the outrageous and intemperate attack on Government policy by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)—uncharacteristically—will the Secretary of State make sure that the Bulgarian and Romania Governments recognise that the restrictions on labour market entry are due to the pressures on many of our communities caused by unrestrained immigration? Constituencies such as mine where unemployment has risen by 8 per cent. over the last year have to be given some time to adjust to the influx of eastern European labour.

Margaret Beckett: I can only say to my hon. Friend that I understand the concerns that he expresses on behalf of his constituents. It is not my understanding that there has been a substantial impact everywhere of the work force flows that we have seen hitherto, but certainly it is the case that the Government have taken a decision to observe and monitor this transition and to review the position next year.

Iran

Peter Luff: What recent assessment she has made of the political situation in Iran; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: We remain deeply concerned about the political situation in Iran. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms continues to deteriorate, and Iran is increasingly isolated as a result of its support for terrorist groups, its attitude towards Israel and its role in Iraq and Lebanon. The regime is thus preventing Iranians from enjoying the political and economic benefits that would flow from an improved relationship with the European Union and the rest of the international community.

Peter Luff: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, but we have of course all seen the reports that the United States of America may be seeking Iran's co-operation in the next stage of the operation in Iraq. Does the right hon. Lady think that there is any contradiction between such an approach on one hand and, on the other, attempts to isolate and censure Iran both for serious breaches of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and for human rights abuses?

Margaret Beckett: No one is trying to. In so far as Iran is isolated, Iran is isolating itself. In particular, with regard to breaches on the nuclear file, the international community has bent over backwards to offer Iran what it says that it wants: access to modern civil nuclear power. I do not think that there is any inconsistency. We recognise that Iran is a major player in the world and the region, and that it could play a very positive role, and we would like to see it do so.

Doug Henderson: Following that question, may I say to my right hon. Friend that I thought that her interview on the radio some weeks ago about the position in Iraq and how it relates to Iran was admirable? It showed clear and forward thinking. Does she believe that, for a future constitutional settlement in Iraq that was stable and that allowed the withdrawal of British and American troops, there would need to be an understanding on that constitutional position that had at least a large measure of support from the Iranian Government and also the Syrian Government? If she does believe that that has to be taken into account, will she indicate to the House what kind of initiatives she might be willing to take?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, but I hope and believe that we are a long way from considering a different kind of constitutional settlement in Iraq. There is a great deal still to be done in Iraq—I do not want to pre-empt the debate later and I know that you would not wish me to do so, Mr. Speaker—but we remain of the view that it is in the interests of the people of Iraq for the country to be united and to remain united, and for the Government to be united and to work on the security and services issues that are of such concern to their people.
	My hon. Friend makes an important and serious point about the influence that either Iran or Syria can have in the region, but all that I would say is that I know that he will forgive me if I tread with considerable caution, because, after all, it is the people of Iraq in whose hands the future of their country must lie. I am in no doubt at all from conversations that I have had with members of that country's Government that there would be great resentment if it were believed that other countries were trying to run theirs.

Nicholas Winterton: May I ask the Foreign Secretary, for whom I have great regard and respect, how we can improve our relationship with Iran? She indicated in an earlier reply that she believes that Iran is highly influential in its particular region of the world. Like her, I believe that perhaps Iran is the linchpin of a peaceful settlement in the middle east. What can be done by our Government, and the House through the Inter-Parliamentary Union, to improve our relationship with Iran and its current leadership?

Margaret Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I know that he is well aware that I return his regard and respect, due to the exchanges that we have had in the House over many years.  [ Interruption. ] It is all right, we are moving on. However, the question that he is asking is one of the most difficult in present-day foreign policy and one that everyone is mulling over in their minds. How is it possible to improve a relationship with a country that, on the one hand, says that it wishes for that improved relationship, but, on the other, does not engage, even in the most favourable circumstances, in constructive dialogue with the rest of the international community? For example, we continue to offer Iran a way out of the dispute over the nuclear file. The door remains open on those negotiations and we would be willing to undo any steps that were taken, if Iran were to come into compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency advice.
	With regard to the role played by organisations such as the IPU, I share the hon. Gentleman's view that that kind of parliamentarian-to-parliamentarian relationship can be of merit and value and I would welcome any steps taken in that regard.

Andrew MacKinlay: How much more difficult is the Secretary of State's task of protecting and promoting United Kingdom interests in relation to Iran and persuading Iran to comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency when a leading Opposition spokesperson writes in  The Daily Telegraph that he thinks that Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon? I am referring to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who I understand aspires to be in government, as a member of the shadow Cabinet. Given that that is also read in Iran, does it make the situation more difficult?

Margaret Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that that is extremely unhelpful. One can only hope that in Iran they are as aware of the reputation of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) as a jokester as people are here.

William Hague: Not dissenting entirely from the Foreign Secretary's last comment, may I ask whether she shares the legitimate concern that in the nine months since Iran was referred to the Security Council, no concrete measure to curtail its pursuit of nuclear weapons has been agreed—not for want of trying by the British Government, I recognise? Will she be redoubling the Government's efforts in the coming days to ensure that a strong Security Council resolution on weapons programmes, arms sales, visa bans and asset freezes will be agreed so that the united resolve that has been shown over North Korea can also be shown over Iran?

Margaret Beckett: The discussion as to the content of any such Security Council resolution is quite difficult. We said in Vienna during some of the earliest talks that we had—certainly during my tenure in this office—that we wished to proceed incrementally precisely so that we could ratchet up pressure, but be ready to reduce that if it appeared to be having an effect and causing Iran to move. That is what we really want. No one wants to implement sanctions; we want to get into negotiations on the basis of Iranian agreement. We will keep up the pressure. Indeed, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I was having conversations on exactly that matter with the relevant people only this morning.

Darfur

John Bercow: What recent discussions she has had about the continuation of the African Union force in Darfur; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells: The African Union force plays a vital role. It is imperative, as an interim step, that the force stays and is strengthened until a United Nations force arrives. We were the first country to finance the African Union force and we will continue supporting it until a UN force deploys. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development discussed the force when visiting Darfur on 16 October.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that considered reply. Given that the United Nations has been no more effective at protecting life in Darfur than it was in Srebrenica or Rwanda more than a decade ago, does he agree that the time has now come for the international community unambiguously to accept the responsibility to protect, to ignore the posturing by the Sudanese Government, and to set about enforcing the no-fly zone over Darfur so that the African Union force can at least have some cover when it is offering invaluable protection to vulnerable civilians?

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman has made some very sensible suggestions. This test for the United Nations is as great as any that it has faced over the past 20 years. If we do not step up to the mark, if nations do not realise that the situation is desperate—we are trying to alter it through diplomacy—and if we cannot step up our action, I fear that we will live to shame our behaviour on Darfur.

David Drew: My hon. Friend will be aware that Salva Kiir, the vice-president of Sudan, is visiting London. I and other hon. Members had the opportunity to meet him yesterday. The message from Salva Kiir is that the comprehensive peace agreement will come under enormous strain until and unless the Darfur situation is sorted out. Cleary there is a split in the Government in Khartoum, and, in the meantime, there has to be some bolstering of the AU forces. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sands of time will run out unless action is taken to bolster those forces and that this Government have a great stake in making sure that that happens?

Kim Howells: I agree very much. Ministers and senior officials are engaging international partners to ensure that there is unified pressure on the Sudanese Government to accept a UN force, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a renewed political settlement with the rebels. We have a team of diplomats working in Darfur with parties to the Darfur peace agreement to bring non-signatories into the political process. We are assisting the African Union to implement the Darfur peace agreement.
	The United Kingdom has not been mean in its financial assistance to the African Union. We have pledged a total of £52 million in financial assistance to AMIS, including £20 million pledged in this financial year. We are the second biggest bilateral humanitarian donor to the Darfur crisis, and since April 2004 we have contributed over £190 million in humanitarian assistance to Sudan. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) just told us, however, we have to do a lot more, and that means galvanising the opinion of UN member states to take much tougher and more focused action.

Michael Moore: The whole House is united in its horror and disgust at the killings and suffering in Darfur, the scale of which was underlined by the expelled UN envoy Jan Pronk, when he said that the Sudanese armed forces
	"are trampling all over"
	Darfur
	"and are still trying to gain a military victory."
	Further to the question by the hon. Member for Buckingham, will the Minister tell us whether enforcement of the no-fly zone is actively being considered?
	On the broader issues in Darfur, does the Minister agree that China and Russia hold the key to the credibility of the United Nations in this instance, and that they must robustly ensure that the resolution is implemented in full?

Kim Howells: It is difficult to understand, in diplomatic terms anyway, why Russia, China and, of course, Qatar abstained in the crucial vote on Sudan, although we are glad that they abstained rather than trying to veto any movement on this issue. We have to consider all means of trying to put pressure on the Sudanese Government to make progress on this issue, and there is a range of options that we can look at, including sanctions and proper monitoring of military activity. We must do everything that we can to try to enforce the African Union mission force so that it becomes more, not less, effective. However, we must remember that its remit runs out on 31 December, and our aim must be to get a UN force in there to do what it, and no one else, can do.

Michael Connarty: I am very heartened by the Minister's statement that the UN force is on the way out there. The remark by the hon. Member for Buckingham comparing this situation with Rwanda is very telling. I spent time in Rwanda during the summer and read extensively on that and Darfur; the similarities are incredible. People are talking about civil war when what we are watching is genocide committed by a Muslim-Arab Government on a non-Muslim and prominently Christian population of Africans. To do the job properly, we need the forces to have not only the necessary numbers, but the right rules of engagement. What will be the rules of engagement for the UN force which will make the mission effective and stop this genocide now before it is just like Rwanda—something for which we will apologise for the rest of this century?

Kim Howells: The UN force will be operating primarily under chapter 6 but partially under chapter 7, which gives it the right to take action against armed groups who are blocking the peace process. That will be a step forward.
	I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work on this dreadful situation, but I have to say to him that there are many hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are being put under the hammer by the Sudanese Government forces, the Janjaweed and so on. We must not assume that this is a religious war. Elements of it are an attempt by the Khartoum Government to hit opposition of all sorts. We must be careful to recognise that a great many Muslims are suffering at the same time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is reported in the press this morning that the Vice-President of Sudan will be seeing the Prime Minister this afternoon. Can the Minister give the House an indication of what those talks might contain? The humanitarian situation, which was described by the UN as being the worst in the world, the number of people killed, the 2 million displaced people and now the increasing tide of refugees into Chad, which is destabilising that country, are totally unacceptable. Will the Prime Minister tell the Vice-President that if he does not allow the UN force into Sudan by 31 December, the British Government will go back to the United Nations to seek a renewed mandate under chapter 7, so that a force can go in by force to improve the situation?

Kim Howells: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the United Kingdom cannot do that alone. We must try to persuade other Security Council members to act with the same determination as this country to bring peace to that region and to put pressure on the Sudanese Government. Everything the hon. Gentleman says about that dreadful situation is true, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be repeating that to a Sudanese politician who has done a great deal to try to bring about reconciliation, especially in the south of Sudan, and who should be congratulated on that.

Afghanistan

John Pugh: What contacts the Government have had with tribal leaders in Afghanistan.

Kim Howells: The Government and the international security assistance force—ISAF—recognise the importance of engaging with local communities to help deliver security and as a key element of the work of provincial reconstruction teams—PRTs—which are helping to deliver better governance and support reconstruction and development. The United Kingdom, through its military personnel and civilians based in its PRT in Helmand, regularly engages with local community leaders.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that constructive answer. Does he acknowledge that working with the traditional tribal structures is as important as working with the Government in Kabul in order to secure a lasting peace? I have recent e-mails from a paramount chief in Afghanistan, who calls for massive development work and also for direct negotiations with tribal chiefs to bring peace and weaken the Taliban's grip. Will the Minister comment on that, please?

Kim Howells: After many trips to Afghanistan, it is clear to me that there will not be some kind of military victory in Afghanistan in one day or in the future; there must be political engagement. For that to be successful, all parties must recognise the structure and the culture of Afghan society. That means engaging with tribal jirgas and understanding the importance of that tribal culture. In some parts of Afghanistan, it determines what happens on a day-to-day basis, so if we ignore it, we do so at our peril.

Joan Ruddock: If my hon. Friend engages in talks with tribal leaders, will he ensure that justice for women is on the agenda? Although we all applaud the progress made by women in education and in democratic elections, violence against women, particularly honour killings, is on the rise. Human rights workers—Afghan women—have been killed, and there is a high rate of child marriages and abduction of young women. In our dealings with Afghanistan, will my hon. Friend ensure that Security Council resolution 1325 is fully implemented?

Kim Howells: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right to highlight those matters. It is written into the Afghan constitution that women's rights are equal to men's rights, and that they should have equal protection and enjoy every opportunity that men do. That does not happen, of course. In reply to the question from the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), I noted that in many places Afghanistan still has a profoundly tribal culture, which means that we must take those issues on as well. That means working with the new Parliament, which has a high percentage of women Members, in order to fight for the changes that my hon. Friend has defended so often in so many venues. We stand by her. Those are some of the most important issues facing the new Afghan Parliament, and we will do everything we can to support it.

William Hague: Does the Minister recall that the chairman of the House international relations committee in the United States has called on the US Administration to alter their strategy against opium production in Afghanistan, describing the poppy eradication programme as "a failure"? I recognise the immense difficulties in that area, but opium cultivation in Afghanistan has increased by 59 per cent. this year. Are the Government considering changing their strategy? Is there full agreement between the UK, US and Afghan Governments on the most effective way forward, and what is it?

Kim Howells: We confer regularly—day by day and week by week—with the Afghan Government and the other allies in Afghanistan about that question. The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the increase in the opium crop in the past 12 months, which is shocking and disappointing. He should examine the UN Office on Drugs and Crime report—I know that the executive summary only has been published, but I hope that the full report will be published shortly. In some provinces, the remit of the democratically elected Government has been extended and means something—for example, improvements in infrastructure. However, that remit has hardly touched other areas, such as Helmand province, which we have just moved into, and such provinces are where the greatest increases in opium poppy production have occurred. We must learn a lesson from that. It is possible, and it has been seen to be possible in more stable regions such as Mazar-i-Sharif, to see a decline in opium production, where it is clear to farmers that they can grow something else because there are other markets such as those for fruit and wheat. It will be a long haul, and we were all too optimistic about the possibility of decreasing opium production.

Iran

Tim Loughton: What recent progress has been made by the UN Security Council on Iran; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: Iran has not taken the steps required in Security Council resolution 1696 and the International Atomic Energy Agency board resolutions, which would allow talks to begin on the basis of the generous proposals presented by Javier Solana on behalf of the E3+3 in June. I chaired a meeting of E3+3 Foreign Ministers in London on 6 October, and we agreed that there is now no option but to seek a new Security Council resolution imposing sanctions. We have begun consultations with partners.

Tim Loughton: I went on the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Iran in June, when I was able to eyeball parliamentarians. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Iranian economy is in a fragile state and is haemorrhaging money in order to subsidise basic supplies to keep the masses placated? Until recently, the Guardian Council consistently vetoed legislation on money laundering in a country through which the bulk of the heroin trade passes and which has given large sums of money to terrorist organisations. Given that the US Administration have taken steps to isolate the Iranian regime financially by blocking the access of Iranian banks, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to encourage UK financial institutions to follow suit and to work with her European counterparts to isolate the Ahmadinejad regime financially and in terms of trade?

Margaret Beckett: We have led the way in trying to persuade people to help to counteract money laundering. As I said in reply to an earlier question, we remain in close contact with our EU colleagues and our Russian, Chinese and American colleagues on the most effective way to deal with the position in Iran. We are anxious to try to maintain the balance between exerting firm and clear pressure on Iran to come to the negotiating table and not giving those who want to call off the negotiations the excuse to do so.

Middle East

Richard Burden: What recent assessment she has made of prospects for peace in the middle east; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited the region from 9 to 11 September and met key leaders. We welcomed the commitment by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas to meet without conditions. The Government remain fully engaged and continue to call on the Palestinians and Israelis to make progress on the road map, to which both President Abbas and the Israeli Government remain committed.

Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the important building blocks of any durable peace is that the democratic rights of all people in the region are respected and upheld? In that context, is he aware that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, at its 115th assembly, expressed its deep concern at the continuing detention of more than 30 elected Palestinian parliamentarians? Has he made representations to the Israeli Government about their being either released or charged, and what has been the Israeli Government's response?

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend is right. This does not help the peace process in any way whatsoever, nor does it set a good example of how a democracy should be treated. We might not agree with the Hamas Government—we certainly disagree with them about many things—but those parliamentarians have been elected by the Palestinian people and they should be released. At the European General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting of 17 to 18 July, we continued to support the EU position that those parliamentarians should be released forthwith.

Crispin Blunt: Do the Government believe that there is any prospect of Hezbollah disarming if the Shebaa Farms area is not surrendered by Israel to the United Nations or directly to Lebanon?

Kim Howells: Shebaa Farms must be a central feature of the post-conflict discussions that take place between all parties in the region. The hon. Gentleman, who is extremely interested in this subject, knows as well as I do that there is also a dispute as to who Shebaa Farms belongs to. Is it Syrian? Is it Lebanese? Is it to be regarded and negotiated on as part of the Golan heights package? It is a difficult one. It is clear to me from the discussions that I had in Beirut in the middle of the bombardment in July that Shebaa Farms is a central issue that must be addressed if we are serious about getting a permanent peaceful settlement in Lebanon.

Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend consider Iran's repeated threat to wipe Israel off the map as a serious threat to the renewal of the peace process given Iran's continuing support for terrorism and its policy of acquiring nuclear weapons?

Kim Howells: It is difficult to understand why Iran makes these threats. It is interesting that when I speak with the Iranian ambassador, he tries to tell me that it is a rhetorical device that I should not take any more seriously than I take anything else that is said. I do not think that that is what international diplomacy can afford to be about these days, especially not from a country that is hell-bent, as far as I can read it, on developing a nuclear bomb. President Ahmadinejad has difficulties enough at home in trying to meet the election pledge that got him elected after that cooked-up election with a list of candidates personally picked by a kind of fascist theocracy. Instead of threatening another sovereign state, he ought to be concentrating on trying to tap the enormous potential in Iran—great natural resources, a huge population, and a great culture—to make that country wealthier in line with his election promises.

Michael Ancram: Does the Minister agree that in any two-state solution there can be no stable Palestinian state without the exclusively democratic participation of Hamas, and no secure peaceful Israel without an agreed and permanent ceasefire from Hezbollah? In that regard, what discussions are the Government having, if not with the Government of Iran, at least with the Government of Syria?

Kim Howells: Certainly, we must step up our discussions with all the parties in the area, which will unquestionably include the Syrians. We are beginning to understand that there is a way out. The war in the Lebanon was horrendous and a lesson to us all. It could easily have spilled over into other areas. We must intensify all the negotiations, which must be region-wide, to reach an all-middle east settlement. I hope that not only the nations named by the right hon. and learned Gentleman but the states of the Gulf become more involved in determining that middle east peace process. If that happens, we can begin to make progress.

Ann Clwyd: I am sure that you will be concerned to know, Mr. Speaker, that among the 35 Members of Parliament properly elected by the Palestinian people who are in jail in Israel is the Deputy Speaker of the Palestinian legislative council. There can be no excuse for keeping those people in prison. Will my hon. Friend make every attempt to get them either released forthwith or properly charged with a criminal offence?

Kim Howells: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I know that she has done a great deal of work to try to bring that about. I hope that she continues that work, as there are few Members who have such a reputation in the middle east, as well as in the House. We rely very much on her analysis of such extremely difficult situations. This, however, is a relatively simple question. Those imprisoned are important parliamentarians, with whom we may not agree—we may be vociferously opposed to what they stand for—but who have nevertheless been elected by the Palestinian people and must be able to speak on their behalf.

Darfur

Andrew Robathan: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of United Nations policy and the resolutions of the UN Security Council on Darfur.

Kim Howells: The UN is playing a critical role in efforts to resolve the appalling conflict. Successive Security Council resolutions have offered significant UN assistance, imposed sanctions, referred the situation to the International Criminal Court and underlined the consequences of non-compliance. Resolution 1706 mandating a UN force demonstrates the UN's continued commitment to Darfur. We are pressing Sudan to accept the UN deployment, which remains the best opportunity to secure lasting peace.

Andrew Robathan: In the late 1930s, the failure to take effective action against the Italian invasion of Abyssinia led to a complete loss of credibility for the League of Nations. The awful, complex situation in Sudan and Darfur is not the same, but what can the UK Government do, as a permanent member of the Security Council, to ensure that the UN, the only truly international peacekeeping show in town, maintains its credibility?

Kim Howells: This is a test at least as pointed and severe as Rwanda and Srebrenica. We cannot afford another Srebrenica or Rwanda. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right. It seems to me that the challenge is not just to focus the eyes of the Security Council, although it would be good if all its permanent members were focused on resolving the issue, but to provide an example to the world of how the United Nations can act under difficult circumstances to rescue huge numbers of people from the most dreadful fate.

Chris Mullin: What discussions have we had with the Chinese Government about Darfur? Are not they the key to breaking the deadlock?

Kim Howells: I would not agree with my hon. Friend that the Chinese Government are the single key, but there is no doubt that they are an important interlocutor. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have spoken frequently to the Chinese about the matter, and we will continue to do so. The Chinese play a very important role, and not just, incidentally, in relation to the amount of oil that they buy from Sudan, which is nevertheless an important variable in the equation.

Pakistan

Vincent Cable: What recent discussions she has had with the Government of Pakistan on security issues; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Khurshid Kasuri, at the margins of the UN General Assembly on 19 September. They had a comprehensive exchange of views on security issues.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that it is easier for Britain to co-operate on security with Pakistan if the latter observes basic human rights? What assessment has he made of the recent Amnesty report, which says that elements in Pakistan's security forces are responsible for large-scale disappearances, illegal detention, rendition and torture?

Kim Howells: Human rights are certainly at the centre of our relationship with Pakistan. There are great problems in Pakistan—there is no question about that—but President Musharraf has made a number of extremely brave decisions, and has taken initiatives to try to reinforce human rights in a country that suffers hugely from terrorist problems, from Balochistan right up to the north-west frontier. We must do all that we can to encourage, in the most constructive way, the case for enhanced human rights in Pakistan, but we should understand, too, that President Musharraf has made great strides in bringing that country into a more civilised and democratic state.

Keith Simpson: Even given what the Minister has just said, does he have any evidence whatever that Pakistan's intelligence and security officers are involved in supporting terrorist activity—and not only terrorist activity in Afghanistan, but terrorist activity aimed, indirectly, at the interests of this country?

Kim Howells: We have many worries about the infiltration of terrorists and weapons across the borders, especially the borders of Helmand, Kandahar and perhaps Nimruz provinces with Balochistan in Pakistan. President Musharraf has tried to reassure us that he has complete control of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency in Pakistan. I really believe that he has been trying to bring elements of the ISI firmly under Government control, because it does his Government no good in the eyes of the international community to be seen to be helping, or even just to be suspected of helping, in any way the terrorists who are killing British, American, Dutch and Canadian soldiers on just the other side of the border.

Termination of Pregnancy

Nadine Dorries: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the time limit for legal termination of pregnancy from 24 to 21 weeks; to introduce a cooling off period after the first point of contact with a medical practitioner about a termination; to require the provision of counselling about the medical risk of, and about matters relating to, termination and carrying a pregnancy to term as a condition of informed consent to termination; to enable the time period from the end of the cooling off period to the date of termination to be reduced; and for connected purposes.
	The aim and objective of the Bill are to reduce the number of abortions that take place each year in Britain. That figure has reached 180,000, or 600 a day, and rising. There is now far greater knowledge and awareness, and much less stigma, surrounding the issues of pregnancy. The morning after pill can now be bought over the counter and there are pregnancy home-testing kits that can be used in the very early stages of pregnancy. The aim of my Bill is to reduce the number of abortions performed, and I wish to concentrate on social abortions that take place between the 21st and 24th weeks of pregnancy.
	In 1990, when the House set the abortion limit at 24 weeks, viability—the date at which a foetus could survive outside the womb—was the principal consideration. Science has moved on, and so should the debate. Advanced medical scanners are now used by people such as Professor Campbell, one of the UK's most highly respected neonatologists, and I am grateful to him for his help and insight. The images produced by ground-breaking foetal monitoring techniques show the layperson how a foetus looks and behaves in the mother's womb. The images are moving, and there is no doubt that they have informed public opinion. However, they simply reaffirm information that the medical profession has known about for some years, which is why the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states that for late abortions foeticide must take place first.
	To put it simply, the professionals insist that a foetus must be put to death in the womb before it is aborted. The majority of abortions over 20 weeks take place using foeticide. Guidelines were drawn up recently because doctors simply do not want to perform abortions on babies they think may have a chance of survival or who may be aborted alive. In accordance with Royal College guidelines, a late abortion takes place over two days. On day one, a lethal injection is inserted into the foetal heart—I will spare hon. Members the details of the way in which that procedure is executed. When the doctor is convinced that the foetal heart has completely stopped, labour is induced and the foetus is delivered using forceps on day two.
	Many doctors think that a foetus is sentient—that is to say, conscious—from 18 weeks. Many of us have seen scanned pictures in the newspapers showing the smiles, the thumb-sucking and the kicking, and it is hard to disagree. Doctor John Peebles, a leading foetal development consultant from University College hospital said only last week:
	"For social terminations we have to say that 24 weeks is not justifiable because you have to induce labour, but first go through the process of foeticide. Therefore doctors in my position would support a lowering to 21 weeks."
	Doctors do not like foeticide and they do not like late abortions. They have to perform 3,000 abortions a year on babies of over 20 weeks' gestation for social reasons. There is evidence that what we are debating from 20 weeks could be a sentient being.
	Some doctors argue that babies are sentient from 18 weeks—at that point, the foetus is no longer a collection of cells and embryonic fluid. If we accept that, and I believe that the evidence is compelling, we are morally obliged to reconsider the legality of late abortions. Some Members may question the science of viability and claim that perhaps only a few babies would survive. Some Members may take issue with the point of sentience, waiting for yet more concrete scientific proof. There may even be Members who think that foeticide is an acceptable practice. It is a prescribed practice by the Royal College, but anyone who supports the upper limit of 24 weeks endorses foeticide.
	If we put the three together—viability, sentience and foeticide—the evidence is overwhelming and compelling. The time has now come to reduce the limit to 21 weeks. It is 2006—not 1967 and not 1990. Time and medical technology have moved on, and so has the mood of the nation. Polling this year showed that the overwhelming majority of British people support moves to end late abortion for social reasons. We now know beyond doubt—thanks to the comprehensive, respected Ferguson study undertaken over 25 years—that women who have abortions subsequently have twice as many mental health problems and three times the risk of major depressive illness as women who have not had an abortion or who have carried a pregnancy to term.
	Last Friday,  The Times published a letter from 12 leading UK professors, consultant psychiatrists, obstetricians and doctors calling for a revision of the Royal College guidelines, stating that we now have a duty to inform women of the risks associated with having an abortion. My Bill calls for a 10-day cooling-off period that would give the mother breathing space, allowing her time to think, to be counselled and advised of the risks of abortion and to be guided through the options, which should include the possibility of carrying the pregnancy to term. I call that a woman's right to know and to choose, because without information, what choices does a woman have? A period of informed consent is about empowerment—it is about whether or not the decision to abort is fully thought through. It is about making an informed decision.
	Many pro-choice campaigners describe abortion as a relief to most women. I am sure that it is a relief from the panic-ridden, helpless situation in which many women find themselves, but as well as relief they experience an overwhelming sense of grief and trauma. Whereas relief is a temporary emotion, the grief and loss may last for many years. In fact, they may not even set in for many years.
	With the introduction of a cooling-off period, whenever a woman says to herself "If only", she would in future be able to reassure herself that she was helped, that she had thought long and hard and that she was given all the knowledge and advice that she needed. She will take comfort from the fact that a decision was not rushed or panicked, but well thought through. That does not happen now. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service website advertises that from the point of seeing a doctor, abortion will be performed in five days. That is abortion on demand.
	In the countries where informed consent has been introduced, the number of requested abortions has dropped dramatically. With a period of informed consent in this country, together with a reduction in the number of late abortions, the Bill will achieve its aims and objectives—to reduce the number of abortions performed each day and to assist women in making calm and well-thought-through decisions.
	The third part of my Bill is designed to ensure that after the 10-day cooling-off period, when the woman decides to proceed with the termination, those 10 days are not added to the waiting period. Time has moved on, science has moved on, and so has public opinion. Respected medical opinion—the country's leading neonatologists and foetal development consultants—thinks that it is time to reduce to 21 weeks. Even the public agreed in a recent study that late abortion was cruel and believe overwhelmingly—85 per cent.—that it should be abolished. I believe that it is time for Members to respond. After all, we passed the Act a long time ago.
	I do not have all the answers. As with any Bill, the detail would need debate and amendments, and there are hon. Members with far greater wisdom and knowledge than me who would like to contribute. The Bill at least brings the debate into the open. It is wrong that it has been suppressed for 16 years. As I have said, it is not about a woman's right to choose, but about a woman's right to know.

Chris McCafferty: I rise to speak against the Bill with a feeling of great responsibility—in particular, responsibility to the silent majority, the one in four women in this country who have had a termination of pregnancy in the past, but who do not talk about it. After all, this is the last great taboo. Those women will listen to the debate with concern—not, perhaps, for themselves, but for their daughters and grand-daughters and their right and ability to make similar choices, if necessary, in the future.
	Abortion has recently been made a matter of debate by those who want a reduction in the upper time limit or even the complete abolition of abortion in this country and abroad. It is a campaign that is fuelled and funded by religious conservatives from Washington to Rome— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Bill's promoter was heard in silence and the same courtesy should be given to the hon. Lady.

Chris McCafferty: The campaign has then been extended to these shores, where it has no place. The Abortion Act 1967, which made abortion legal in this country, was a great gift of choice from that Parliament to the women of Britain. Parliamentarians like David—now Lord—Steel and my own predecessor in Calder Valley, the late Lord Houghton, who developed and enacted that legislation, showed great courage and are owed a huge debt of gratitude by any woman who has ever found herself with unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. By a single legislative Act, they consigned the harrowing spectre of back-street abortion and back-street butchery to the history books.
	In 21st century Britain, there is no place for a law that discriminates against individual and entire groups of women, that encourages confusion about entitlement and that allows some individuals the right to impose their will and their morality on others, risking the physical and mental health of thousands of women. All those who believe in rights and taking responsibility, freedom of choice and personal autonomy will oppose this ill-informed Bill. It aims to reduce the abortion time limit from 24 to 21 weeks, introduce a 10-day cooling-off period after a woman has already decided that she wants a termination, and insist that the woman undergoes counselling during that 10-day period, whether she requests it or not, yet it perversely proposes that an abortion should be accelerated if a woman confirms that she wishes to end the pregnancy.
	I am gravely concerned about the Bill's impact on women generally. No new scientific evidence exists to suggest that foetal viability is now 21 weeks. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Nursing do not believe that there has been sufficient technological improvement to merit a reduction in the current limit. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has no documented evidence of survival below 24 weeks.
	A very small proportion of women need late terminations. Those who do have compelling reasons and often face extremely difficult or unusual circumstances, perhaps the catastrophic long-term illness of another, older child. No one involved takes decisions about late terminations lightly. Contrary to tabloid disinformation, no scientific breakthroughs have occurred to cause a reduction in the current limit. Restrictions on legal rights would leave some women in a desperate predicament.
	Reducing the time limit of 24 weeks would have an adverse impact on the small number of girls or women who seek late abortions. Some women would be forced to give birth to unwanted children, some would travel abroad at great expense at a time when they were vulnerable, and some would inevitably resort to illegal abortions and risk their lives. In 1967, the UK Parliament rightly decided that those alternatives were no longer acceptable.
	Late-term abortions are rare. In 2005, less than 1.5 per cent. of all abortions took place after 20 weeks. Of those, less than 0.6 per cent.—a tiny fraction—were carried out at 22 weeks or later. Those that take place do so for specific and often heart-breaking reasons. This ill-informed measure does not even take into consideration the plight of women who have a wanted pregnancy but discover a foetal abnormality at a later stage. The first opportunity of detecting an abnormality is often by scan at approximately 18 to 20 weeks. The current 24-week limit allows a woman and her partner time to consider a very difficult decision. Reducing the limit could mean that they would be rushed into making a decision or were unable to decide in enough time to allow the abortion to go ahead, if that is what they wanted.
	A cooling-off period would simply prolong the anguish of a woman who has already decided that she cannot continue with her pregnancy. It would effectively reduce the time limit further and might prevent a woman from getting the termination that she desperately needs, even if she presents before 12 weeks because, in many parts of the country, access to post-12-week abortions is restricted. The earlier the abortion takes place, the less invasive it will be, and the possibility of complications is also reduced.
	Of course, counselling should be available to those who want it, but it should be non-directed and non-compulsory. Making it a requirement to accessing an abortion goes against the rationale of counselling. Unless it is properly regulated, it could be distressing and misleading. There should be no delays for a woman who seeks an abortion. The stop-start approach in the Bill will unfortunately lead to even longer delays than those that currently occur.
	I heard the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) on the radio this morning, saying that the Bill's objective is to reduce abortion rates per se. Ultimately, we all want to reduce abortions.  [Interruption.] Of course we do. Nobody likes abortions. We also want to reduce the gestation period following which abortions take place. However, restricting access to services is not the solution, and reducing the time limit is certainly not the solution.
	As I have said many times in the House, the best way of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies is to improve women's access to contraception, as well as educating women and men about sexual health. This cruel Bill—for it is a cruel Bill—is an attack on women's reproductive rights. It would force a very small number of very vulnerable women to continue pregnancies against their will and would deny every woman seeking an abortion the ability to make her own choice within the time scale that is appropriate to her.
	I say to hon. Members: "By all means vote for the Bill if you really believe that a woman should be required to continue a late-diagnosed pregnancy, even if her health is at risk or the foetus is abnormal. Vote for the Bill if you do not believe that such difficult decisions should, wherever possible, be made within families." But I also say to hon. Members: "Vote against the Bill if you are pro-life, if you are pro-quality of life, if you are pro a woman's life. Vote against the Bill if you are pro-women's rights, because women's rights are human rights. Vote against the Bill if you are pro-reproductive rights, because reproductive rights are also human rights. Vote against the Bill if you are pro-humanity, because it is cynical, cruel, ill-informed and, above all, inhumane."

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
	 The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 187.

Question accordingly negatived.

Opposition Day

[Un-allotted Half-Day]
	 — 
	Iraq

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business, and I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Also, to accommodate the nationalist parties, I have decided that there will be an eight-minute limit on speeches in the Opposition day debate. That will apply after opening speeches, and until we come to the final two winding-up speeches.

Adam Price: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.
	It is an honour to move this motion on behalf of my hon. Friends and of right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House of Commons. It is the culmination of a long campaign, and it is a debate that is long overdue. The motion has cross-party support because the issue at its heart is far bigger than one of party politics. It is about accountability. It is about the monumental catastrophe of the Iraq war, which is the worst foreign policy disaster certainly since Suez, and possibly since Munich. It is about the morass in which, regrettably, we still find ourselves. It is also about a breakdown in our system of government—a fault line in our constitution that only we, as Parliament, can fix. Fix it we must, if there are not to be further mistakes and other Iraqs under other Prime Ministers, in which case we shall only have ourselves to blame.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adam Price: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall not. I intend to be as generous as I can, but I wish to develop my arguments. We need to hear as many voices as possible in this debate, and there is a time limit on speeches, but I shall give way to interventions.
	The debate on 18 March 2003 was one of the most momentous—some would say calamitous—debates in the House of Commons in modern times. The Prime Minister gave one of the great performances of his life; it was full of certainty and undaunted by doubt. But unfortunately, we now know that much of what he told us that night was false. It is no wonder that democratic politics has haemorrhaged public confidence. Only we in this Parliament can stem that flow; we can rebuild some of that trust by holding a proper inquiry into what went on.
	What could an inquiry usefully do? There will inevitably be a range of views within the House, which is why we need a sufficiently broad remit. But three central questions need to be answered. How could the Government take us to war on claims that turned out to be false? When precisely was the decision to have this war made? Why has the planning for, and conduct of, the occupation proved to be so disastrous? Maybe the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) can give us some answers?

Adrian Bailey: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman feels very deeply about this issue. But do his electorate in Wales and the electorate in Scotland consider it to be the most pressing issue affecting them?

Adam Price: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, like many other Members, I have constituents who are now on their third deployment to Iraq, and, yes, they want us to debate this issue. Some would argue—like the hon. Gentleman, no doubt—that we should not even have this debate while troops remain on the ground in Iraq. If we follow the logic of the Government's argument, the graver the mistake—and, therefore, the greater the danger to which our troops are exposed—the less the Government should be required to defend their record.

Douglas Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman care to remind the House that the argument that we should not debate these matters when troops are operational is precisely the argument that was made in the Norway debate, and which, happily, was rejected by people like my father, who voted against Chamberlain and brought in Churchill?

Adam Price: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes the point very well. We need to turn the logic of the Government on its head. We need to do so precisely for the sake of our troops. We have been led into this quagmire by way of a false rationale and without a clear strategy, and we need to debate the Government's appalling record. The troops deserve nothing less.

Stuart Bell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adam Price: I wish to make some progress, if I may.
	Almost on a weekly basis, we see senior military figure after senior military figure making yet another devastating assessment of the Government's policy-making capacity. Lord Guthrie said that the policies are cuckoo. Lord Inge said that there was a lack of clear strategy at the Ministry of Defence. Most damning of all was the verdict of the current head of the Army, who said that
	"history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial...war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning."
	Unfortunately, we have not seen that kind of honesty from any Government Minister to date. However, it is fair to say that the Foreign Secretary came perilously close when she said that history may judge the Iraq war to have been a disaster. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of waiting for history's verdict; we need some answers and action now.
	A Government who were prepared to parade before our eyes dossier after dodgy dossier of carefully edited intelligence will not now let us read any of the intelligence on what is happening on the ground. We have had no comprehensive statement to date of Government policy. In February last year, the Prime Minister promised the Liaison Committee that General Luck's audit of coalition security strategy in Iraq would be published. For the record, I quote the Prime Minister:
	"I have seen a draft that is still under discussion...When there is a finished article, it will be published."
	It never was.
	Before the Government come back and say, "That was not our fault; the decision not to publish was made in Washington"—like so many other foreign policy decisions under this Government—I should point out to Treasury Ministers that they have not published a single word of Sir Ronnie Flanagan's assessment of the UK's contribution to Iraqi security sector reform, which was completed 10 months ago. Of course we understand that parts of these reports have to be withheld for security reasons, but does the Foreign Secretary really believe that Parliament can do its duty in holding the Government to account if we get no information about their strategy?
	There are two Iraqs: the Iraq of George Bush and the Prime Minister, where things are going to plan and getting better all the time; and the real Iraq of murder and mayhem, whose future is uncertain. The state of denial that characterises the Government's policy now mirrors the state of delusion that characterised their policy in the run-up to war. The Prime Minister told us that night that it was "beyond doubt" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, even though the intelligence supplied was packed with doubt. He rattled off the huge quantities of WMD that he said had been left unaccounted for. Then he treated us to the punch-line:
	"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years—contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence—Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd."—[ Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 762.]
	Well, not as things turned out. In my more uncharitable moments, I am reminded of that famous Aneurin Bevan put-down during the Suez crisis. He said, "If Sir Anthony Eden is sincere in what he is saying—and he may be, he may be—then he is too stupid to be Prime Minister."
	To be fair—

Nick Palmer: rose—

Adam Price: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I should like to state as a matter of record that I do not believe that the Prime Minister is stupid; that is a wholly unwarranted and unfounded accusation.

Nick Palmer: The difficulty that I and many others have with the idea of a fresh inquiry is the partisan response to the previous four inquiries, whereby those who did not wish to accept what they heard simply rejected them as whitewashes. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the Butler inquiry, the Hutton inquiry and the all-party inquiries that we have already had?

Adam Price: I have heard this charge of political opportunism —[Interruption.] Well, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, facing as we are elections in Wales and Scotland, and given that we have one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in history, political opportunism should mean that we would like to keep him there. In fact, we are doing what is right on a cross-party basis. On the inquiries to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the key issue is: how can the Butler and Hutton inquiries have been genuinely independent of the Executive when their remit and membership were decided by the Prime Minister himself? When you are in the dock, Mr. Speaker, you are usually not allowed to make decisions about the charge sheet, the judge and the jury.

Richard Ottaway: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that during the debate on the Hutton inquiry the Prime Minister actually confessed that he was unaware that there was evidence that the weapons of mass destruction for which he was looking were just defensive weapons—artillery shells or small-calibre weaponry? He was unaware of that at the time, as was Hutton, so we had a situation in which the Prime Minister was making representations to the House on evidence that he did not understand and had not read.

Adam Price: Absolutely. The responsibility of Ministers to tell the truth is not just in making sure that they say what they believe to be true, but testing it against the facts—actually getting into the detail—and there is plenty of evidence, as the hon. Gentleman says, that that did not happen in that case.

Angela Browning: Is not this symptomatic of the way the Government address such important issues? They held several narrowly defined inquiries, rather as they did with foot and mouth, so that we never got the full picture, which is of course very much to their benefit.

Adam Price: Absolutely. The wording of our motion reflects the wording of the Franks inquiry, so that there can be a broad-ranging inquiry and we can learn lessons, to avoid repeating mistakes in the future.

Mark Fisher: rose—

Adam Price: In the interests of balance, I give way to a Labour Member.

Mark Fisher: Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that one of the things at stake this afternoon is the credibility of Parliament, and that the key responsibilities of Parliament are to scrutinise the Executive and hold it to account? If we fail to fulfil those responsibilities in relation to the Iraq war we shall further deepen the growing and worrying imbalance between Parliament and the Executive.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Adam Price: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) has laid bare the constitutional question, which is at the heart of the debate, about restoring the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive.

Lembit �pik: Some have accused the hon. Gentleman of opportunism in choosing to debate this subject on an Opposition day, but does he agree that the people of Wales are keen to get to the truth of the matter and that what we really need today is a sober and considered debate rather than point-scoringprimarily by a very defensive Government? Does he hope that rather than putting party political interests first we can make the interests of democracy and our mistakes in Iraq the primary consideration in our debate?

Adam Price: I agree, and I pay tribute to courageous Members on both sides of the House who have declared support against their party line. Some things are genuinely more important than party politics, and it is a good day for parliamentary democracy when we see beyond party loyalty and look at issues of principle.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adam Price: I have been generous, but I must make some progress because we need to hear as many Back-Bench speeches as possible.
	I want to return to some of the Prime Minister's statements that were out of kilter with much of what he was being told. To give just one example, on 3 April 2002 he said: We know that heSaddam Hussein
	has stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons.
	But in the previous month, the most that the Joint Intelligence Committee could come up with was:
	We believe Iraq retains some production equipment, and some small stocks of chemical warfare agent precursors, and may have hidden small quantities of agents and weapons.
	So may became we know and small quantities became major stockpiles; that was the pattern in the presentation of the case. Small changes in emphasis and the selective use of intelligence were repeatedly used to transform a threat from minor to dire and doubtful to definite, and caveats and caution to blood-chilling certainties.
	Evidence that would have undermined the case was held back. The Prime Minister frequently cited the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, and his admission in 1995 that Iraq had indeed had an extensive WMD programme. However, what the Prime Minister omitted to tell the House was that Hussein Kamel also told UN inspectors in 1995 that he had personally ordered the destruction of all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and that that had happened.
	Most indefensible of all was justification of the war in Iraq on the basis that it would reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack, even though the intelligence services were saying the opposite at the time.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman also concede that any inquiry should look in some detail at the circumstances under which the UN weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, were withdrawn from Iraq in January 2003 and not allowed to go back, having confirmed that they believed with 99 per cent. certainty that there were no such weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Adam Price: Absolutely. I entirely I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose

Adam Price: I need to make progress [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he has to make progress. He is not giving way.

Adam Price: As we have learned over the past few days, with the leaked Cabinet minute and the leaked national intelligence estimate from the United States, the invasion of Iraq has increased the threat of terrorist attacks. It is a sad indictment of the Government that we learn more from leaked Cabinet papers than we ever do from a Cabinet Minister speaking at the Dispatch Box. I hope that this afternoon will be an honourable exception.
	Another critical issue surrounded by confusion and controversy was the timing of the decision to go to war. We were told right up to the last few days before the debate in the House that no decision had been taken, but there is now compelling evidence that the Prime Minister had already made a decision to invade a year earlier. As early as March 2002, the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, was assuring Condoleezza Rice of the Prime Minister's unbudgeable support for regime change. Days later, Sir Christopher Meyer sent a dispatch to Downing street detailing how he repeated that commitment to the US Deputy Defence Secretary. The ambassador added that the Prime Minister would need a cover for military action:
	I then went through the need to wrong-foot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN Security Council resolutions.
	Yet throughout that period, the Prime Minister was insisting that the war was not inevitable and no decision had been made.
	Most incredibly of all, in the most recent leaked memorandum, we read that, in a meeting with the Prime Minister, the President even suggested provoking a war with Saddam by flying a US spy plane bearing UN colours over Iraq and enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it. That is the clearest suggestion yet that the UN was being used not to prevent war, but as a pretext for beginning it.

Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, in his preparation for this debate, he had discussions with any representatives of the Iraqi Government? Has he had representations from the Iraqi trade union movement? Is it not right that the voice of ordinary Iraqi people who support their democratic Government and the actions taken should be heard in this debate?

Adam Price: I would welcome the opportunity to go to Iraq. I have been trying to go, but I was told by the former Foreign Secretary that it was not safe for a Member of Parliament to go to Iraq. That is a sad indictment of the state of affairs on the ground. Those who will support the motion include Members who opposed the war and those who supported it.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adam Price: I need to make progress.
	There is no shame in changing one's mind when new facts come to light. Ask the Attorney-General. He changed his mind three times in three weeks. He finally decided on 13 March 2003, after talking things through with his secretary, that his 7 March opinion was wrong after all and that, to quote the Attorney-General's recent disclosure to the Information Commissioner,
	the better view was that a further resolution was not legally necessary.
	Incredibly, that U-turn was not based on a detailed paper setting out the legal arguments. The Attorney-General who, by his own admission, is not an expert in international law, did not ask for legal advice until after he had come to his decision.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister is shaking his head. I am reading from the Government's own disclosure to the Information Commissioner, which states:
	It was also decided to prepare a statement setting out the Attorney's view of the legal position and to send instructions to counsel to help in the preparation of that public statement.
	So the Attorney-General decided what the legal position was, and then asked for legal advice. You could not make it up, Mr. Speakerwell, you could if you were the Attorney-General, apparently.
	The Attorney-General went on in the same disclosure statement to admit, crucially, that the revival argumentthe notion that the use of force authorised by resolution 678 from the first Gulf war was capable of being revived by the Security Councilwas and remains controversial. Finally, a full three years on from the invasion, we have an unequivocal admission from the Attorney-General that his statement to the House that the war was legal was controversialhis word, not mine.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has said one thing this afternoon with which I wholeheartedly agree: the people of Wales will be looking at the debate with interest. However, many service families will want to know his view not about the beginnings of the war and whether troops should have gone to Iraq in the first place, but about whether they should remain there now. Is it his position that they should leave immediately?

Adam Price: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he knows my position because we debated that a week ago. We are having a different debate, but my position [ Interruption. ] I would gladly debate this with the Prime Minister any time. Let us have [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman be heard.

Adam Price: Let us have this debate now. I would welcome the opportunity to have a debate about the withdrawal [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Hall, it is not your function to heckle an hon. Member constantly, especially when I have given an instruction. I am looking at a few other Members who should behave themselves as well.

Adam Price: There is a fundamental breakdown at the heart of the Government that is continuing to affect decisions that are being made now. The Government have made a catalogue of errors that have resulted in problems on the ground. As hon. Members have said, the problem was that we had not government by Cabinet, but government by cabal. The delicate checks and balances of our constitution were swept away. Cabinet was sidelined and Parliament was misled[Hon. Members: Order!] I did not say by whom.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order.

Adam Price: There is a problem at the heart of our constitution and tonight we need to reapply the constitutional brakes. The military men have been lining up to criticise and so have the mandarins. A letter from Sir Michael Quinlan, of all people, a former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, said that the Prime Minister
	exerted or connived ... to mould legal advice to his preference and failed to disclose fully ... even that moulded advice; and ... so arranged the working of the cabinet that colleagues had no timely or systematic opportunity to consider the merits of his policy in an informed manner.
	Lord Butler made the same point in an interview in  The Spectator. He pointed out that decisions were made on the prime ministerial sofa, rather than in meetings with minutes around the Cabinet table, with all that that meant for both the quality of, and proper accountability for, decision making. Pluralism in the Government, a proper role for Parliament and the Cabinet and a truly independent civil service are there to act as a check on hubris in government. That is why we need to recalibrate the constitution of this United Kingdom and rebalance power for the benefit of Parliament, at the expense of an over-mighty Executive. We are otherwise reduced to the sorry spectacle of an Attorney-General changing his mind to save his political master's skin.
	Let us remind ourselves once again of the central fact: we fought the war because of an arsenal of weapons that proved to be non-existent. Many thousands of people have paid with their lives for that mistake, and the same mirage of deception and disinformation continues to cloud our understanding of what is happening on the ground.

Denis MacShane: To clarify the point for my understanding, will the hon. Gentleman have the courtesy to tell the House whether he thinks that British troops should withdraw now?

Adam Price: We had a full debate, which I led, and my position is absolutely clear. Where was the right hon. Gentleman?
	The constant hailing of non-existent progress by the Government is an insult to those who genuinely appreciate what is really happening in a worsening situation. It is a scandal that, as yet, not a single Minister has unequivocally admitted that things in Iraq have gone wrong. Both in the run-up to the war and in its aftermath the Government's policy has been characterised by a cocktail of wishful thinking, self-delusion and evasion. The sequence of events that led us to commit our armed forces to a war that was illegal and unnecessary is as yet unexplained. The strategy for removing them remains unpublished. The inquiry that we are calling for is not only essential to understanding what happened three and a half years ago; it is imperative in understanding where we go from here. It is impossible truly to discern the problems on the ground in Iraq unless we appreciate what went wrongthe mistakes and misjudgments that took us there in the first place.
	History does not repeat itself, as Mark Twain once said, but it does rhyme. Fifty years ago today, our Government began bombing Egypt under the cover of darkness. That invasion, too, was based on a falsehood. Anthony Eden secretly colluded with Israel and France, and kept Parliament in the dark. It is a matter of debate as to whether the Prime Minister deliberately deceived us, but one way or another we were certainly misled. The evidence clearly suggests that he had privately assured President Bush that he would join the invasion. Here was a Prime Minister so deluded by his determination to do what he believed to be right that he began to think not as primus inter pares but as an acting head of state. It is time now to tell the Prime Minister and all future Prime Ministers that they are not presidents, and that the policy of this United Kingdom does not always have to be the policy of the United States.

Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	recognising that there have already been four separate independent committees of inquiry into military action in Iraq and recognising the importance of learning all possible lessons from military action in Iraq and its aftermath, declines at this time, whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards improving the condition of Iraq, to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention from this vital task.
	The motion before the House today calls for the creation of a new inquiry
	to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq...in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.
	The question that I want to put to the House is not so much whybecause of course it is perfectly sensible and legitimate to say that there will come a time when these issues will be explored in the round and in full, so that we can learn whatever lessons we can from thembut rather, why this specific inquiry, and much more to the point, why now.
	Unlike at the time of the Falklands war we now have a framework of Select Committees that carry out independent inquiries. I recognise that the official Opposition have tabled an amendment that suggests a Falklands-type inquiry in the next Session of Parliament, without pointing out that that begins in just two weeks. I am afraid that I think that that, too, is not sensible. It avoids none of the dangers of sending the wrong signals at the wrong time and distracting resources and attention from where they are most needed. Indeed, it risks appearing to set a deadline for our operations in Iraq which would be politically and militarily damaging.

Edward Leigh: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Margaret Beckett: Not for the moment.
	There have already been two parliamentary Committee reports on Iraq: the Foreign Affairs Committee report, The Decision to go to War in Iraq, and the Intelligence and Security Committee report, Iraqi Weapons of Mass DestructionIntelligence and Assessments. There have been two further independent reports: the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly CMG, and the Butler review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Is this the moment to take a decision and a step of the kind recommended in the motion? My answer is a resounding no. There is absolutely nothing in the unquestionably difficult and delicate situation in Iraq today that makes this the obvious and right time.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was first.

Edward Leigh: So the Foreign Secretary can give a firm commitment to the House that an inquiry will be held as soon as our troops leave.

Margaret Beckett: What I am saying to the House, and what I shall say repeatedly, is that this is not the time for making these decisions. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. Our words in the House today will be heard a very long way away. They can be heard by our troops, who are already in great danger in Iraq. They can be heard by the Iraqi people and by their Government, many of whose members I know many hon. Members in all parts of the House have metpeople whose bravery and fortitude is humbling and who still need our support, not the rehashing of issues that have been gone over umpteen times in the House.

Mark Pritchard: The Foreign Secretary asks why now. What if, God forbid, Parliament has to vote to send our brave armed servicemen and women into war again? We need an inquiry now to ensure that the British people can once again trust the Government. I do not think that that is possible, but I hope that in the House today the Foreign Secretary will agree to an inquiry in order that future wars can be built on trust and on the full backing of Parliament and the people, without mass deception.

Margaret Beckett: I do not take any lectures from Conservative Members, who never, ever gave the House a vote about sending troops into action, including on some occasions when I do not necessarily dispute that it was right to send them, including on occasions without United Nations authority.

Several hon. Members: rose

Margaret Beckett: I give way to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who I believe is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

John Maples: The Foreign Secretary prayed in aid the Select Committee's report. I was a member of that Committee, and I have to say to her that her predecessor and the Government obstructed the Committee's proceedings at every stage possible, refusing to produce witnesses and documents.

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry; I do not accept that in the slightest, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. I followedfrom a slight distance, I concedemany of the discussions and many of the requests from the Select Committee.

Paul Keetch: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Margaret Beckett: Not for a minute. I am in the middle of answering a previous intervention. I followed those matters as carefully as I could, and I observedand I observed it from Committee members who had ministerial experiencepeople asking for papers and for disclosures which they, as former Ministers and experienced Members of the House, would never for a single second have contemplated disclosing. I reject utterly the suggestion that the Committee did not get full support.

Frank Field: Does the Foreign Secretary think I am exceptional, in the sense that not one of my constituents has asked me to press for an inquiry into the causes of the war? However, many of my constituents are troubled about which moves we should make in the best interests of the people of Iraq. Many of them would be appalled at the fact that much of the debate is looking backwards. There will come a time when accounts are settled, but my constituents are desperately concerned about the right moves for the future.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who I know is held in high regard in all parts of the House. What he says is also my experience, and I expect that he speaks for Members in all parts of the House who may not all wish to acknowledge it.
	Several hon. Members  rose

Margaret Beckett: I shall make a little progress, if I may.
	What happens in the House today will be heard not only by those in Iraqthe people and the Governmentbut by those whose intention it is to do us harm, whether in Iraq or beyond. Again, I ask the House to consider whether now is the time to send a signalevery Member of the House knows in their heart that this is truewhich many will undoubtedly interpret as a weakening of our commitment.
	Several hon. Members  rose

Margaret Beckett: I shall give way in a moment.
	There is an important tradition in the House that all political parties give our troops and are seen to give our troops their full support while they are in conflict. That is a precedent which it would be dangerous to break.

Kenneth Clarke: The Foreign Secretary would get rid of the dissention this afternoon and send out a fairly united message if she said that there will be a Franks-type inquiry into the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath as soon as the troops are withdrawn. I cannot understand whether she is saying that she accepts the need for such an inquiry but that the time is not ripe, or whether she is saying in weasel words that we have had enough inquiries already. If she accepted what will be forced on the Government in any eventa Franks-type inquiry when the hostilities have ceasedwe would send a united message from this House.

Margaret Beckett: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot understand what I am saying, because it is clear and simple: today is not the time for making these decisions.  [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary is responding, and she must be heard.

Margaret Beckett: As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention that a Franks-type inquiry is required, I refer him to the discussion in this House in July 2003 when one of my former colleagues, Mr. Tam Dalyell, who was summoned to give evidence to the Franks inquiry, commented on how inadequate it was.

Several hon. Members: rose

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but I must make some progress.
	It is now more than three years

Several hon. Members: rose

Margaret Beckett: I have been on my feet for seven minutes, and I have made very little progress.
	It is now more than three years since the Government committed UK forces, as part of an international coalition led by the United States, to military action against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Saddam Hussein had repeatedly and openly defied the authority of the United Nations, and before UN Security Council resolution 1441, which was carried unanimously because of the unanimous conviction that he represented a serious danger to the international community, he already stood in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. He refused fully to co-operate with the weapons inspection regime imposed on him as someone who had both possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. The international community as a wholenot just the United States and the UKbelieved that he had developed and wished further to develop WMD capability.

Malcolm Rifkind: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that her opposition to an inquiry into the origins of the Government's policy on Iraq would be more convincing if the Government were not simultaneously bitterly opposing any debate on the future of their policy in Iraq? Is she not ashamed that, in the three years since the war, the Government have not initiated a single debate on the subject in this Chamber? The United States Congress was permitted a full debate on the matter as recently as June. Is it not appalling that, when the Government have been responsible for such an arrant misuse of their powers, this Chamber has not been allowed to debate the matter?

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking complete nonsense, as he must be well aware. He is a former Secretary of State for Defence, and he knows that there are five defence debates a year and that there are debates on foreign policy, all of which are in Government time. Of course it is open to people to debate those issues.

Paul Keetch: The Foreign Secretary seems to be saying that an inquiry now would be wrong, because our forces are in the field. Indeed, she has accused the Conservative party of never having succumbed to such a debate in the past. How does she answer the historical fact that in May 1940, while British troops were fighting and losing a campaign in Norway, a Conservative Government allowed a debate in this Chamber in which the Labour party, the Liberal party and some notable people from the Conservative party conspired to vote against the Government of the day, which led to the resignation of the then Prime Minister and the installation of a coalition Government? When our troops are in a campaign, that is surely when this Housea democracyshould be allowed to debate their conduct.

Margaret Beckett: I did not say the words that the hon. Gentleman has put into my mouth, and I am sorry if he misheard me. I continue to take the view that this is not the time for this debate. Moreover, I have been reminded that the motion to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was taken on the Adjournment and was not a motion to bind the Government of the day.

Several hon. Members: rose

Margaret Beckett: I am willing to give way, if I have time, but I must get on with my speech.
	The decision to take part in military action was not taken lightly or trivially. In an unprecedented step, it was the subject of a full debate and a vote in this House, which was right. Committing British troops to a war is one of the most solemn decisions that any Government can ever take, but we did so because we judged, and because this House judgedthe hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) talked about voices being heard; some 52 Members of this House spoke in that debatethat the threat to international peace and security was very real and very grave. The original decision to take military action provoked fierce debate in this Chamber and across the country, and I have no doubt that it will continue for much time to come; but the decisions we take in the weeks and months to come should surely have as their priority what is best for Iraq and its people, here and now, as well as the impact that any decision we make may have on our troops in the field.
	Last December, more than 75 per cent. of the Iraqi people elected a new Parliament under a permanent, new constitution; and let us not forget that they did so under threat of death from those who sought only destruction in Iraq. This spring, that Parliament elected a new Government of national unity representing all Iraq's main political parties, and for the first time in their history the people of Iraq began a bold attempt to share power equitably among the nation's ethnic and confessional populations.

Crispin Blunt: rose

John Baron: rose

Margaret Beckett: I will not give way for the moment.
	I do not in any way underestimate the terrible difficulties that many people in Iraq are facing. Many of them have to cope today and every day with the kind of terrorist horror which so profoundly shocked our own country last July. As I have said, their bravery in the face of that threat is humbling. The Iraqi Government, headed by Prime Minister Maliki, are barely five months into their term. From the outset, they have faced a daunting array of political and economic challenges of a kind with which any Government in the world would struggle to deal. Overshadowing all else has been a relentless and rising tide of murderous violence, some of it a very deliberate effort to destroy the fragile foundations of Iraq's democratic system.

John Baron: Cannot the Foreign Secretary understand that a good part of the deep frustration expressed by this House arises because the Prime Minister refuses to come to this House and lead a debate on current and future policy on Iraq? Given General Sir Richard Dannatt's recent comments, and the fact that the situation seems to be deteriorating, will the Foreign Secretary now encourage the Prime Minister to come to this House and lead a debate?

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but I do not think that that is what is inspiring the comments and the mood in the House today. Perhaps it would be better if it were, but I do not believe that it is.

Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the seriousness of the issue deserves more than the partisan opportunism that we are seeing among those on the Opposition Benches who voted for the war?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct.
	Elsewhere, we have seen a spiral of retaliatory sectarian killings. Here, too, existing ethnic tensions have been carefully exploited by those who have no interest in Iraq becoming a fully functioning state and every interest in dragging it back into chaos and lawlessness. It is this violence that has held up and disrupted the supply of essential services to Iraqis; it is this violence that has meant that the political framework is taking longer to develop; and it is this violence that is holding millions of ordinary Iraqis back from a better future for themselves and their families. That is why Prime Minister Maliki has made tackling the violence his Government's highest priority. We are in Iraq at the express request of that Government and with the full support of the United Nations, and so our responsibility is to support the sovereign Government of Iraq in their objectives.
	The Iraqi Government and the coalition forces are currently engaged in a critical attempt to make Baghdad more secure. In Basra, British troops are in the middle of a similarly vital mission to take on the violent extremists and lay the foundations of long-term security. The challenge faced by the Iraqi people in those two cities, as elsewhere in the country, is not purely military. Much of the current violence has political roots and it will be through determined political effortsled by Iraqisthat it will ultimately be addressed. There can be no substitute for strong political leadership in Iraq. We have strongly supported Prime Minister Maliki's commitment to national reconciliation and have worked hard to bring all Iraq's political and clerical leaders fully and wholeheartedly behind it, because that offers the best chance of building a consensus among Iraq's divided communities, all of whom are suffering from the current levels of violence, and of isolating those who are trying to drive the Iraqi people further from one another.
	At the same time, we are urging Iraq's political leaders to move ahead without delay in taking crucial decisions on the country's future. We are offering strong support for their work to reach agreement by the end of the year on a new law setting out the future of the oil and gas sector, which is central to Iraq's economic regeneration. We are actively encouraging the Iraqi Parliament to pass new legislationagain, by the end of the yearsetting out how the militias can be disbanded and reintegrated into society. We are pushing the Iraqi Parliament for a decision on reforms to the process of de-Ba'athification, as well as on how the agreement to review the new constitution will be implemented. Those are all difficult as well as complex issuesotherwise, they would have been solved long agobut if we get them right, we can create a new, more positive political dynamic in the country.
	Prime Minister Maliki wants to make rapid progress towards the Iraqi Government and security forces assuming responsibility for the country's security.

Bob Russell: While praising our troops' contribution both in the war and today, will the Foreign Secretary please return to and address the motion?

Margaret Beckett: I am explaining why the motion is so profoundly misconceived. The future of Iraq and its people is at stake, and that is what really matters. If the signal sent from the House casts doubt on our support for what is happening in Iraq, for the actions of our coalition forces, and for those who are not in our forces but who are engaged in trying to support the people of Iraq, ultimately, that will be utterly to their disadvantage.

Several hon. Members: rose

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but I must continue my speech.
	The Government share the Prime Minister's determinationas, I have no doubt, does every Member of the Houseto see responsibility pass to Iraqi police and security forces. That is fundamental to the coalition's strategy for progressively scaling down military support to the Iraqi Government. British soldiers are doing an astounding job in the most difficult of circumstances, as they do whenever and wherever they are called on; so, too, are a large number of British civilianscivil servants, policemen and women, aid workers and many more, many of whom I met in Basra not long ago. I am sure that all Members, whatever their view of the motion, would recognise the bravery and sacrifice of those people. That contribution is essential in support of the future in Iraq.
	The new Iraqi army is getting more capable and more confident. It is increasingly non-sectarian. Two of the 10 divisions of that new army have already been transferred to the direct control of the Iraqi Government, and more will follow in the coming months. Therefore, in spite of the violence, we are seeing major strides towards equipping the Iraqi Government with the tools that they need to protect their people without relying on indefinite help from the international community. Two entire provinces

Alex Salmond: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it has been made clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Secretary is not giving way at the moment.

Margaret Beckett: Two entire provinces, al-Muthanna and Dhi Qar, have already been handed over to Iraqi control, and more will soon follow. In our area of responsibility in the south, we hope that Maysan province will also have been handed over by the end of the year. A central aim of our current efforts in Basra is to get that province to the point where it, too, is ready to be handed over to Iraqi lead security control. We hope that that can be accomplished at some point next spring. We share the hope recently expressed by the commander of the multinational force in Iraq that all 18 provinces can be handed over to Iraqi control by the end of 2007.

Andrew Tyrie: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Margaret Beckett: I will give way, as the hon. Gentleman has risen on many occasions, but this must be the last time that I do so.

Andrew Tyrie: This debate is not about the conduct of policy in Iraq now, but about whether we should hold a Select Committee inquiry into the way in which the war has been and will be conducted in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made the valid point that the inquiry by the Foreign Affairs Committee was thwarted by the Government, which the Foreign Secretary refuted. I would like to quote what the report says

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House and knows that interventions must be brief.

Margaret Beckett: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the inquiry was followed by the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Butler reports, which considered the issues in depth. I would say to him, and to those Opposition Members who have been muttering and grumbling, that what I am talking aboutthe present position in Iraqis exactly the point. That position is difficult; we do not dispute that at all. It is also extremely delicate. We are at what could be a turning point in Iraq, and this is not the time to do what the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr did in moving the motion, and rehash all the debates and arguments that have been held over and over again, not only in the House, but in a succession of inquiries.

Sandra Osborne: Is the Secretary of State aware that when the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq was in the House last week, he made the point that any decisions on the future of Iraq, including on the deployment of US and British troops, should be made according to the needs of Iraq, and not of the political agendas of either the US or the UK? Does she agree with that, and does she think that the Opposition parties' motion is helpful or unhelpful in that regard?  [Interruption.]

Margaret Beckett: I utterly agree, and I simply tell Opposition Members that they do not have much cause to complain, as I have given way only once to a Labour Member. My hon. Friend is entirely right that the motion is not helpful to the people or the Government of Iraq, but it is not intended to be.

Susan Kramer: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Margaret Beckett: No.
	We expect the Iraqi Government to request an extension of the UN mandate under which we are currently operating until 2007, and if they ask for ongoing support, we will provide it. I take very seriously, and hold strongly, the view that at this critical juncture, when Iraq's future hangs so clearly in the balance, it would be plainly and simply wrong to heed those who argue for us just to wash our hands of responsibility and walk away.
	We have been working hard in recent months with the Iraqi Government and our international partners to develop an international compact for Iraq, modelled on the Afghan compact, so that the international community can provide further involvement and support for the people of Iraq, and we are keen to use that opportunity to encourage its neighbours to engage fully in the country's stabilisation and reconstruction. An important step forward on that initiative was taken at the UN-hosted meeting that I attended in New York on 18 September, and a further preparatory meeting is taking place in Kuwait today, so critical decisions about the future of Iraq are being taken today even as we debate the issue in the House.
	We would, of course, like two of Iraq's neighboursIran and Syriato play a similarly positive role in promoting stability and development, although the Iraqi Government themselves are convinced that at present those two countries are doing precisely the opposite. We will continue to pressure them to take a different approach, but it would be naive to imagine that that is a straightforward task. I have set out the objectives and strategy that we, our allies and the Iraqis are currently pursuing, and I can see no credible alternative.

Khalid Mahmood: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Margaret Beckett: I will give way, for the final time.  [Interruption.] It is only the third time that I have given way to a Labour Member.

Khalid Mahmood: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I think that the real issue today is the huge number of Iraqi lives that have been lost

Menzies Campbell: Why?

Khalid Mahmood: Those lives have been taken as a result of action by the insurgents. Our troops are there to make sure that action does not take place. Every day, a huge number of people in Iraq lose their lives, and what Opposition Members have done today is encourage that process. What we need to do
	Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to rethink his words and rephrase what he just said.

Khalid Mahmood: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. What I meant to say was that actions taken here are watched throughout the world and that there are people who will capitalise on these actions and further put at risk the lives of our service people in action [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that interventions must be brief.

Margaret Beckett: I have said, and we have repeatedly said, that neither our forces nor our civilian support staff will stay in Iraq a day longer than they are needed. For now, however, we are needed, so we stay.

Susan Kramer: rose

Margaret Beckett: I have repeatedly told the hon. Lady that I am not giving way to her.
	Some have argued that we should abandon the idea of preserving Iraq's territorial integrity and accept the break-up of the country. I do not believe that it would be in anyone's interestnot the Iraqi people's, not the region's, not our ownto try to partition Iraq's communities. There are no neat divisions in Iraq. Its great cities host a medley of communities. Splitting Iraq's people apart and forcing people to move from their homes would risk bloodshed on a scale far worse even than we see today, but engaging in that argument at all seems to me to miss the crucial point.
	Our task in the House and in the country is not to speculate on or to predict what decisions a future Iraqi Government might or might not take. It is to unite now in support of the national Government of Iraq, who were elected by the Iraqi people to govern that country. I believe that those who tabled this motion and those who are considering supporting it have fallen into the same trap of ignoring the imperative of the present difficult situation in Iraq.
	I have no doubt that there will come a time when we will want to look at the lessons learned from our full experience in Iraq, just as we have from every other major conflict in the past, but now, I repeat, is not that time. The challenges Iraq faces are, as I have set out today, acute. They will require our undivided attention and focus. Our responsibility to the people of Iraq demands nothing less.
	I recognise that Conservative Members have proposed an amendment that suggests a Falklands-type inquiry in the next Session of Parliament. As I have explained, I believe that that is also unwise. Whatever anyone's view of the decisions that were made in 2003 and subsequently, it would be the wrong decision today to divert the time and energy of all those working hard to secure a better future for Iraq. I have to say that I deplore the apparent complete disinterest in the future of Iraq that some Opposition Members have displayed [Interruption.] It would be a waste to divert our energies to a further inquiry.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Margaret Beckett: I hope that all Members will think very carefully indeed before casting their votes tonight. It is all very well to say, as some Opposition Members have said, that it is all right to vote for the motion because they do not really support it. I fear that the parliamentary nuances will be lost on the Government of Iraq, let alone the wider international community. Furthermore, Conservative Members should reflect on with whom they will be going into the Lobby if they support the motion. Many of those who support the motion have always opposed this action. Before hon. Members decide how to vote tonight, I ask them to weigh very carefully indeed what signals will be sent out.

William Hague: There is a strong case, which is felt throughout the House, for a lengthier and wider-ranging debate than the one that is possible today. We shall ensure that in the debate on the Queen's Speech, far longer consideration is given to international affairs, including the future of Iraq. Whatever our analysis of the past, as the Foreign Secretary said, the decisions in the coming months on the future of Iraq are immensely important. On thatand much elsethe Foreign Secretary and I fully agree.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) would not expect me to agree with everything that he said, and I did not. However, the call for a major inquiry at the appropriate time into an operation so vast, expensive and chequered with successes and failures as the war in Iraq and its aftermath has obvious merits. The Foreign Secretary made a mistake in her inability to tell the House today that such an inquiry would take place at some stage. To argue against a Franks-style inquiry on the ground that someone thought that the Franks committee was inadequate is not a logical reason for opposing a future inquiry. It is also illogical to suggest that an inquiry would be calamitous on the ground that four have taken place already, and to say, in any debate in the House of Commons, that we should be careful about whom we join in the Lobby. Surely hon. Members should cast their votes on the merits of the case.
	Whatever our views of the origins of the warI have supported the Government's objectives throughoutnone of us can credibly argue that there will be no important lessons to learn for the Government and all future Governments. Ministers should not hesitate to acknowledge that freely this evening.
	The Conservative amendment makes it clear that we differ from the proposers of the motion on two important points. First, we believe that the membership of any committee of inquiry should be modelled on the Franks committee, which met after the Falklands war. It should consist of Privy Councillors but be able to draw on expertise and independence that may not be available in the House. A committee of seven Members of Parliament would necessarily be a partisan committee and the credibility of its findings would be correspondingly reduced. There would be a useful role in any inquiry for leading public servants who are not politicians. The motion would be stronger if it allowed for that.

Adrian Bailey: The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be lessons to learn, and he could be right. However, does he agree that it would much better to hold an inquiry to learn such lessons after British troops had done the job in Iraq and withdrawn, and when the process of restoring a democratic Government to Iraq was complete, rather than undermining the morale of British troops in the next Session?

William Hague: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Foreign Secretary has been unable confirm that there would be an inquiry at all. That remains one of the differences in the House today. I presume that the hon. Gentleman believes that an inquiry should take place at the point that he identified. Perhaps he should have intervened on the Foreign Secretary, rather than on me, to make that point.
	Our second difference with the motion is that we do not believe that such an inquiry should be established now. As the Foreign Secretary said, important operations are under way in Iraq. Major political decisions in Iraq and efforts to contain the insurgency appear to be in the balance. The Baker commission is expected to report in the next few months. Any inquiry should be able to examine what happens in the coming months as well as the events of recent years. To begin an inquiry now would therefore be prematureto that extent, I agree with the Foreign Secretarybut there is no legitimate reason why the Government cannot say today that an inquiry will be established at some point in the next Session. That means any time in the next 12 months.
	The Defence Secretary has spoken about being
	quite far down the process of transferring responsibility to the Iraqis,
	and the Minister for the Middle East has said:
	certainly within a year or so there will be adequate trained Iraqi soldiers and security forces...in order to do the job.
	Ministry of Defence sources told  The Daily Telegraph last week that more than half the British troops would be withdrawn by next February. It would be inconsistent to make those assertions while maintaining that in the course of the next year no committee of inquiry could even begin its work, which would presumably take a further six to nine months to report in 2008.

Kitty Ussher: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that if his amendment is carried, the Iraqi authorities will interpret it as a message of support from Britain? If not, does he agree with his leader, who said last summer that a failure

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment has not been selected for debate.

William Hague: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that our amendment has not been selected for debate does make it unlikely that it will be carried. Whatever the Iraqi authorities are worried about, that will not be one of the factors that concern them.

Jane Kennedy: rose

Frank Field: rose

William Hague: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

Frank Field: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is clear from the debate that the House of Commons will demand an inquiry of the kind that he is requesting when troops are safely back home? The real question that we must decide today is whether the inquiry should take place then, or whether we should fix a timetable although our troops may still be engaged.

William Hague: I do think that there is a great demand for the inquiry, although it is a pity that Ministers are not participating in that demand, which is felt in so many other parts of the House. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can rely on its being forced on them at the time.
	Of course it is an alternative to say that rather than the inquiry taking place in the next Session of Parliament, it should take place after the conflict has endedalthough Ministers have not even gone so far as to say that this afternoon. The difficulty with that idea is that the end of the conflict was pronounced three years ago, and it did not come to an end. It is sometimes very hard to define when the conflict has ended. I feel, for the reasons that I have given, that specifying the next Session of Parliament, over the next year, is a wholly reasonable request.

Jane Kennedy: rose

William Hague: I will give way a few more times later, but I must make some progress first.
	The argument put to the press by the Prime Minister's spokesman in the last 24 hours that if the Government were to open the door to an inquiry with such a time scale it would damage the morale or performance of our troops who are in Iraq at the moment does not bear serious scrutiny. Many of our troopscurrently facing a very difficult situation in Basra, with the British consulate under mortar attack in the last few days, and doing an heroic job in very difficult circumstanceswill want to know that politicians of all parties have studied the Iraq war in great detail, so that decisions can be made in the future from which they and their colleagues will benefit.
	Furthermore, it was the Chief of the General Staff himself who said two weeks ago:
	we need to reflect on what has happened over the previous three years. It has proved more difficult than expected.
	That is precisely what an inquiry in the future would be able to do. He also saidand this is a stronger criticism than anything that has been said from the Opposition Front Bench
	the fact we are still there is leading to problems.
	General Dannatt may have been stretching his relationship with the Government, but no one has suggested that he was undermining the morale of the troops by making those points, and that accusation should not be made against other people who make those points.
	I will now give way to the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy).

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentlemanalthough I am sad to see him allying himself and his party to the shabby political opportunism of the nationalists.
	In considering what he would say tonight, did the right hon. Gentleman take into account the words of the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq when he visited Parliament last week and was able to brief Members? He made clearhe pleaded with usthat the absolute, overriding priority for this Parliament was to concentrate on building Iraq for the future. Did the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to be briefed by the Deputy Prime Minister? If he did, what was he advised?

William Hague: We do not disagree with that at all. Of course it is a great priority. But it would be a mistake to think that we can build properly for the future without any regard to the lessons of the past, and it would be a great mistake to argue that we cannot do better in the futurein future conflicts, or in Iraq, or in Afghanistanwithout holding inquiries of this kind.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether I had met the Deputy Prime Minister. I have not, but my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Defence Secretary, has been to Iraq and met many of the people there. There is no shortage of contacts between the Opposition and politicians in Iraq. We listen to them, just as Labour politicians rightly listen to them.

Several hon. Members: rose

William Hague: I really must make some progress, but I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend also remind the House that President Bush himself commissioned former Secretary of State Baker to examine the present situation in Iraq and come forward with policy options? No one anywhere, even on the Labour Front Bench, has suggested that that was inappropriate.

William Hague: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point. Similarly, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Inge, has said:
	I don't believe we have a clear strategy in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I sense we have lost the ability to think strategically.
	Is he, a field marshal, to be accused of damaging our troops by raising any questions in public?
	I do not believe that it is possible to argue, in a House of Commons which 80 years ago instituted an inquiry into the Dardanelles campaign while the first world war was still raging, that to raise even a suggestion of an inquiry in the future is somehow to undermine the British Army. The British Army is both tougher and more thoughtful than that. Its operations should not be used as an excuse to avoid examining any of our political processes and judgments.

Several hon. Members: rose

William Hague: Let me see. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), for the sake of diversity.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the military families campaignmany of whose members have lost loved ones in Iraq in the past three yearshas sent a letter to many hon. Members before today's debate supporting the call for an inquiry, because they want to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones, and whether they died for a legal or an illegal war?

William Hague: Those people will be particularly concerned about our deliberations today, but it is also in the interests of the whole nationand the conduct of policy by this or any other Government in the futureto learn the lessons at the appropriate time.
	Let us be clear that the demand for an inquiry is not set against a background in which everything has failed. Saddam Hussein has been removed from power and is rightly on trial before his people. Three sets of free and fair votes, including two parliamentary elections, have been held in Iraq, and the hard work to build up the Iraqi security forces, many of whom now operate with great dedication and bravery, has shown substantial success. But it would be utterly naive for those of us who supported the invasion of Iraq not to acknowledge that other things have gone wrong or fallen below expectations, and that unless the British people can see that those matters have been examined minutely, properly, and thoroughly with a view to informing the future decisions of all of us, the strength and unity of this country in facing future international crises will be undermined.
	According to the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, who has issued 41 reports and audits without being accused of undermining the troops, the assumptions made pre-war about the oil and gas sector in Iraqthat its revenues would pay for reconstruction, that foreign investment would quickly flow in, and so onhave all proved to be incorrect. It will be vital to study in the future why, in his opinion,
	corruption is another form of insurgency in Iraq.
	It will be vital to study why nearly $9 billion of revenue dispersed by the coalition provisional authority could not be accounted for. As this country has committed some 500 million to reconstruction, is it not essential to examine its effect?
	No one can really deny that the question of why only one third of projected reconstruction has been achieved to date, and what impact that has had on respect for coalition forces and the political progress of Iraq, must be thoroughly assessed in the future. We must be able to come to a view about whether more could have been done to control or seal Iraq's borders, whether more could have been done to win the hearts and minds of the population, and whether, if the coalition forces had been able to impose their authority by preventing looting in the days immediately following their arrival in Iraq, subsequent developments might have been different. We do not know the answers, but we need to know.
	The Chancellor has said that
	the lesson of Iraq is that we didn't prepare enough for the transition.
	If that is the lesson, we all need to learn more about it. The Foreign Secretary has herself said, in a commendably frank answer to the question whether future historians might see the Iraq war as a foreign policy disaster:
	Yes they may. Then again, they may not.
	It cannot be argued that it is fine for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary to say all those things, which question what has happened in Iraq, but that for any Opposition Member to suggest an inquiry is some traitorous act that lets down the country or our troops. It will not be sufficient for the assessment of the historians that the Foreign Secretary mentioned, or for her and her colleagues in Government, or for any who hope to serve in a future Government, to base their assessments on hearsay, impressions or half truths. The case for a searching inquiry, at the right time, is so strong that the Government should have no problem in acceding to it and I am astonished that they are not able to do so.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Although I disagree with many of his conclusions, I congratulate him on putting forward a more coherent case than did the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price). He has argued especially strongly against holding an immediate inquiry, and I agree about that. Does he therefore accept that it would be logical for him and his party to join us in the No Lobby if the House votes on the motion later tonight?

William Hague: No. Given the practical confines of House of Commons procedures, it is logical for an Opposition to try to produce the effects that they want. The Government have failed to give any assurance about holding an inquiry, in the next Session of Parliament or at any time. I certainly recommend that my hon. Friends vote for the motion, as the practical effect of ensuring that it is carried, or nearly carried, is that the Government would have to think about coming forward with their own proposals for an inquiry, of the right kind and at the right time. That is the right way for Opposition Members to vote.
	There are members of various parties who have given strong support to the Government but who are adamantly of the same opinion. In the interests of time, I shall refer only to the former Foreign Secretary Lord Owen [ Interruption. ] Labour Members should not tut-tut, as he was a Labour Foreign Secretary. At the end of June, he said:
	There is now an overriding case to establish an inquiry similar to the Dardanelles Commission
	He went on to say that
	there is no more important issue now for restoring morale in the services than for the Parliament of this country to assert its rights over the Executive and establish that inquiry, even though it is likely to be fought tooth and nail by the Prime Minister.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. 1350, 1353.]

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been fighting in Iraq for the cause of democracy and liberty, and that there is no finer sign that that is what we believe in than the fact we can hold a democratic debate in the House and set up a proper democratic inquiry? What is the point of democracy if we cannot challenge how the Executive have handled a very contentious war?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As I have said, our predecessors in this House debated the Dardanelles. They also debated the Morris report in 1918, to the great embarrassment of Lloyd George, and the 1940 Norway campaign. They were not scared that debating such matters might have given heart to the Germans, in either the first or the second world war. We will not be worthy of being their successors unless we are unafraid to debate things in this House as well.
	I am less hard on the Government than Lord Owen or the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr. We on the Opposition Front Bench do not call for this inquiry to be established immediately. We would be happy for the Government to give thought as to when it should begin its work, but we also believe given that operations have been going on for more than three years and are expected to diminish considerably in future months, and that we live in a country where we are meant to enjoy the great democratic strength of discussing our successes and failuresthat to postpone the establishment of such an inquiry beyond the end of another Session of Parliament would be beyond the limits of what is reasonable.
	All we want the Government to say is that, in recognition of the force of the arguments for an inquiry in due course, the relevant Committee, based on the Franks model, will be established within the next year. We would consider such a response to be a proper one. If the Government gave it, we would abstain from voting on the motion tonight. However, if they are unwilling to say that, even though there are two significant points of differences between many of us and the proposers of the motion, we believe that the House of Commons should send Ministers a message that they must come up with their own proposals. In the absence of those proposals today, all who believe in the proper scrutiny of the Executive should cast their votes accordingly.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

David Blunkett: What a tangled web we weave[ Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

David Blunkett: Those who from the beginning were against the action that we took remain opposed to it. Those who wish that they had been against it, and who have not yet declared, are likely to vote with the Opposition tonight. The very few who have changed their minds are reluctant to say so. However, the majority of Members, not only on the Labour Benches but in the House as a whole, have not changed their minds about the validity of the action taken, on which we voted on 18 March 2003. There are also those who have not changed their minds, but who cannot miss an opportunity to have a go at this Government, at our Prime Minister and at the actions that we have taken, regardless of the consequences in terms of demoralisation and the difficulty that doing so causes for our troops in Iraq and for the Iraqi people.
	By his own admission, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, does not agree with the motion that he is asking Members of his party to vote for. He clearly said that he did not agree with the structure, the membership, the terms of reference or the likely outcome of an inquiry on the terms laid down in the motion. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. He then went on to say that he did not agree with the timing of the motion and that there should not be an inquiry now.
	The right hon. Gentleman made a powerful case for further debate. The Hear, hears that were uttered across the Chamber were in recognition of the fact that there is a case for a debate. It has been made over and over again this afternoon, in terms of what happened in 1918, or in May 1940 on the abortive Norwegian campaign. However, nobody at those times suggested that there should be an open public inquiry and that we in this House, our armed services and our security services should be diverted into answering to it in the middle of a conflict. A debate was agreed to, by all means, but not an inquiry. There is a substantial difference between the Opposition advocating this afternoon that their Members should go through the Lobby in support of a motion that they do not agree with in respect of its terms of reference, structure or timing, and on the other hand advocating a debate.
	On the timing issue, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he did not agree that there should be an inquiry now, but that he thought that there might be one in the next Session of Parliamentin other words, in the next year. He was presuming that there would be substantial change in Iraq, and we all hope that there will be. But what message would be taken by the opposition in Iraqby the terrorists and insurgents in Iraqfrom the suggestion that it might be inappropriate to have an inquiry now, but that it might be appropriate to do so in the next 12 months presuming that, if the right hon. Gentleman gets his way and the House agrees tonight that this is likely, not only will things have improved, but our troops will have withdrawn within those 12 months? We cannot, in all honesty, make that presumption.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: No, I will not give way, as I have only a few minutes left.
	There are, in the words of Donald Rumsfeld, known knowns and known unknowns. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon listed a group of issues that he said we needed an inquiry to determine. I agree that the issues he raised are on things that went wrong following the first three and a half weeks of the Iraq campaign, but we know the answers to the questions that he raised. We know the answers to the questions that the Opposition generally have raised this afternoon.
	We know that there was controversy about whether the action we took under international law was illegal. As someone who was closely involved in that, I want to put on the record that it was a deep slur by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price)the mover of the motionto suggest that the Attorney-General, who is an internationally renowned human rights lawyer, did not know what he was doing, or that he altered his advice to suit the circumstances. That is a slur that the hon. Gentleman should have withdrawn, and it is an absolute disgrace that he made it. Of course there was, and there still is, controversy about the legality of the action that we took, and controversy will remain about that. Those who believed that it was right will believe that it was legal, and those who did not, will not.

Andrew Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Blunkett: No, I will not give way because we have an eight-minute rule.
	In all conflicts, what happens in them determines how people see the outcome. In Kosovo we hadthank Godan outcome that saved tens of thousands of people from genocide. The illegality of the action taken fades into history. I hope [Interruption.] Well, that is a simple point about those who have been, and remain, against our action in Iraq, but who have somehow never been against our action in Kosovo. Our action in Kosovo saved lives, and our action in Iraq is now determining whether there is a structure that can hold and a security system that can take care of the future functioning of the state of Iraq.
	We all know that had other action been taken to retain the civil service, the local government, the administration and the middle and lower echelons of the armed services in Iraq, our debate today might have been unnecessary because there would have been a different outcome. We know what has been revealed over the past three and a half years, and many of the questions that have been asked not just this afternoon but over that period have already been answered. We know that there are lessons to be learned, but we also know the consequences of a vote tonight that casts any doubt whatsoever on the UK's determination to stand by the people of Iraq, to stand by the democratically elected Government and to stand by our armed services, who are doing their job in Iraq. There are consequences to the votes that we cast, and when the main Opposition vote, knowing that they disagree with the motion but determined to give the Government a bloody nose, they can only be described as hypocrites.

Michael Moore: This is a very important debate, and anybody who doubted the need for it just needs to cast their eye over some of the recent estimates produced by, among others, the United Nations, which points out that some 3,000 civilians are being killed every month. Some 100 United States military personnel have been killed in October alonethe highest figure since the initial invasionand British armed forces continue to suffer losses and terrible injuries.
	One cameo reveals a lot. Three years ago, soldiers patrolled the streets of Basra in caps and berets and handed out sweets to children. Now we learn that, for the safety of our staff, which must be paramount, people have been evacuated from our consulate in Basra. If this is not the time for a debate and an inquiry, when will be the right time?
	We welcome the Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party motion, which was co-sponsored by Members from all parts of the House, but what does it say about the real situation in Iraq when the Government are not prepared to provide their own time for debate? We of course welcome the Foreign Secretary's presence and hope that, before too long, she will introduce such a debate in Government time. At the very least, her speech today has provoked a great deal of reaction, and there is much more to debate.
	Previous contributors have properly paid tribute to the armed forces and their bravery, professionalism and dedication in the most dangerous and difficult of circumstances. A total of 120 United Kingdom service personnel have been killed since the invasion three and a half years ago, and about 5,500 have been evacuated from Iraq due to injuries since the conflict began. The Chief of the General Staff, General Dannatt, is more aware than most of the sacrifices and hardships that have been endured. Nevertheless, his dramatic recent intervention took the country by surprise. We cannot underplay the stark nature of his message. He said:
	Whatever consent we may have had in the first place may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance...the original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance in the Middle East. That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or nave hope history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition.
	In normal times, there would be serious questions about the appropriateness of the general's intervention, but it was a sign of the severe level of frustration in the armed forces and of the fact that Parliament has not been doing its duty of holding the Government to account and challenging the lack of a proper strategy. We have always recognised our responsibilities to the Iraqis and for wider regional stability. Ultimately, however, our responsibility is for the security of our armed forces, ensuring that they have sufficient and appropriate resources and a credible mission that they can hope to achieve. What General Dannatt highlighted is that all those things are in question and that there appears to be no strategy to address the problems.
	It is a revealing insight into the weakness of the Government's position that the general was not asked to resign after making those remarks. In fact, the Prime Minister said:
	What he is saying about wanting the British forces out of Iraq is precisely the same as we're all saying.
	When Sir Richard said that the presence of the troops exacerbated problems in Iraq, the Prime Minister said that he was absolutely right Really?

Ben Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman think it perverse that a serving general can ask for a reflection about our time in Iraq, and the Government allow him to do so, yet they do not allow the House to reflect on the situation in Iraq or the future of that country?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes a first-class point. I hope that Members on the Government Benches will reflect on it.
	Of course, nobody believes that the Prime Minister's words were what he was really thinking, especially when he routinely talks of staying the course and says that we will not cut and run. That has become a mantra, but it is not a strategy. Time and again, what is repeated echoes the line taken in the United States of America, but we should pay attention because debate in the US has moved on. Even President Bush has abandoned the mantra. At the White House, on 11 October, he said:
	Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working; change.
	If President Bush can change, why not our Government, too?
	All Liberal Democrat Members, and many other Members, opposed the original dreadful decision to invade Iraq. We feared the worst, but even in our pessimism we underestimated the horrors of the situation that we see now. There needs to be accountability for the mistakes that were made, and lessons need to be learned. We have already discussed the narrowness of the Hutton and Butler inquiries and the difficulties with the investigation undertaken by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	The motion is an important step forward. It echoes the early-day motion tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and should be regarded as a serious attempt by Parliament to assert its rights and do its job of scrutinising the Executive.

Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is considerable disquiet in the country about the fact that in the past decisions have not always been taken on the basis of what is best for the Iraqi people? That should be the guiding factor in how we behave and how decisions are taken in this country, so is not it important that we have a transparent process to ensure that that happens now and in the future? Does he agree that the troops would want us, as decision makers, to consider that?

Michael Moore: As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) remarked earlier, it is extraordinary that it is apparently acceptable for the head of the Army to speak out on behalf of his troopsas he ought to do, even though normally and more traditionally it would be done in privateyet the House is supposed not to have that debate.
	Four years on from the dossiers and the fateful decisions to go to war, we are still none the wiser about the political decision-making processes that led to the war. We have been given snatches from the Attorney-General's legal advice and titbits from the diaries of Cabinet Ministers and former diplomats, but no serious examination of the critical issues. How did the Prime Minister and the Cabinet consider the issues facing the country? Where did Foreign Office advice fit into the calculations? How serious were the attempts to get the second resolution? At what point did we make a commitment to the United States to support them in the invasion? When and how did the Attorney-General get himself involved in the process? What planning was there for the aftermath in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development? That is just a sample of the huge range of issues that we have still not considered in this country.
	We must learn from the past, but we must also ask about the future and what the strategy now is. Across the Atlantic there is a debate about that, and it is every bit as fierce as here. The difference is that in the United States there is a serious attempt to fashion a new strategy, with the bipartisan Iraq study group chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. That group's remit is to review the strategic environment in and around Iraq, the security of Iraq and the key challenges to enhancing security within the country, political developments within Iraq following the elections and the formation of the new Government, and the economy and reconstruction of that devastated country.
	Secretary Baker has said in plain American terms that Iraq is a helluva mess. Already there have been suggestions that his panel will depart from Mr. Bush's repeated calls to stay the course. In particular, Mr. Baker has strongly suggested that the White House enter direct talks with countries that it has so far kept at arm's length, including Iran and Syria. He has indicated that if a new strategy is not found within the next few months, the whole process could be overtaken by the chaos on the ground. The search is on for the least worst option, with the group's overriding concepts being stability first and redeploy and contain. That is a blunt but welcome recognition of the new realities and indicates a greater emphasis on stabilisation, especially in Baghdad.
	None of that is easy. Much of it has been thought unthinkable in the United States up until now. However, the United States is having a proper debate. What about here? Has the United Kingdom been involved in making submissions to Secretary Baker's group? What does it make of the suggestions that are being discussed fairly openly in public now?

Gordon Marsden: As the hon. Gentleman is speaking in this debate, some of my constituents in Blackpool are being deployed to serve in Iraq. Does he think that it is helpful at this time to put forward the sort of arguments that he is making? On the back of the things that he has said already, will he tell us whether or not the Liberal Democrats are committed to a process of immediate withdrawal?

Michael Moore: We are not, and I will get to that point. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who will be putting their lives on the lineagain, if they have been there before. Not one person in the House will do anything other than support them to the hilt. We ask of them huge things: to give up their lives and to risk serious injury. Frankly, it is not helpful to the debate to suggest that there is any lack of support by people on this side of the House, or anywhere else, for what they are doing. I refer him not just to what General Dannatt said on behalf of the Army, but to the reaction on websites and in chat rooms all over the place, which shows how people in the Army feel. The hon. Gentleman will find that, finally, people think that here, today, we are getting an opportunity for Parliament to do its duty.

Eric Joyce: The hon. Gentleman has used the name of the Chief of the General Staff several times. That is up to him. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) did the same earlier. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is wise to imply that the Chief of the General Staff of the Army supports an Opposition motion in the House?

Michael Moore: I know the hon. Gentleman well. We have had debates on Iraq in private and in public many times over the past three or four years. I have made no suggestion about what the general thinks about this debate. I have simply quoted what he has said on behalf of his men and women serving in the Army. The hon. Gentleman can make his case in due course if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Considering what is going on in the United States, where is the equivalent United Kingdom commission to recognise the changed realities and to prepare the thinking to allow for a phased withdrawal of British forces? We are not short of former senior figures in this country of different political persuasions and nonefrom government, the diplomatic world, the military and academiawho could examine these issues and allow Britain to make its contribution to the debate. If that can happen in the United States, why not here? We certainly cannot allow the policy thinking and policy making to occur across the Atlantic but not here. In the final analysis, Britain must make its own assessment and act accordingly.

John Baron: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but this is not just a question of looking across the Atlantic to see what is happening. In this country, the public, the media and the armed forces are debating the matter. The only place that is not debating it is this Chamberthat needs to be put right.

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are seeing that there is a lot of pent-up demand for that debate.
	Earlier this year, the leader of our party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), set out the key stages of a possible strategy for Iraq that would allow the phased withdrawal of all coalition troops. He talked especially about the need to internationalise and, specifically, to involve the neighbouring states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran. There would be immense difficulties with that, not least because of the role of some of those countries in Iraq at present, their links with Hamas and Hezbollah, and fears about Iran's moves towards a nuclear capability. However, we must now contemplate that as part of the broader issue of regional stability. Those countries have a direct stake as neighbours. Iraq is one of the most intricate pieces of the jigsaw in their neighbourhood, and the middle east peace process is inextricably linked to what goes on in Iraq. Our Prime Minister says that he wants to stake his reputation on making progress with the middle east peace process. How on earth will that be possible while we are mired in Iraq and unwilling to deal with some of the key regional players?
	The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram), made a welcome statement in Westminster Hall last week:
	those people who are part of the problem must be part of the solution, otherwise they remain part of the problem ... We must reach out and find a way to deal with the problem.[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 435-36WH.]
	That is just one of the issues to be tackled. Other hon. Members have set out many more. We should be grateful for the Minister's recognition of at least that point, but that one concession does not amount to a strategy, and we need one fast.
	The mid-term elections in the United States next week will set the scene for the report of the Iraq study group, which is expected between then and the end of the year. Are we just to accept the position passively, or will there be a proper debate here as well? The shadow Foreign Secretary has already indicated that there will be the traditional international affairs debate following the Queen's Speech in a couple of weeks. That debate will offer some scope for hearing more from the Government, but given that so many other issues are pressing at the momentthe middle east, Darfur, North Korea, Iran and Afghanistanit will surely not be enough. The Government should thus either set aside an extra day for debate after the Queen's Speech, or provide time for a separate debate on a substantive motion in the very near future.
	General Dannatt put it in bald terms. He said that we should
	get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.
	He also said:
	We've been there 3 and a half years and we don't want to be there another 2, 3, 4, 5 years ... We've got to think about this in terms of a reasonable length of time ... and I hope that will be sometime soon.
	His comments acknowledge that whatever our substantial obligations to the Iraqi people to sort out the mess that we helped to create in their country, ultimately our responsibilities are to our armed forces, who put their lives on the line. We need to be able to show that in doing so they are following a strategy that is clear and deliverable. We need to take account of what is happening in the USA and prepare an appropriate British strategy. That strategy has to recognise the worsening realities in Iraq; it has to appreciate the situation of our armed forces as described by General Dannatt and supported by many ex-Chiefs of the Defence Staff; and it has to amount to a plan for a phased withdrawal of British troops in months, not years.

Denis MacShane: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who was speaking for the Liberal Democrats, save that in not a single sentence did it address the motion. He read out what General Dannatt said and told us that we need a phased withdrawal, but the motion under debate tonight has only one thing at its core: a sectarian proposition by the Scottish National party inviting this House to do, not what the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) suggested and examine over the next 12 months the desirability of having such an inquiry, but to resolve tonight to set up an inquiry involving seven Privy Councillors of this House. I am not making a job application for one of those slots because I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary that there are other Privy Councillors, outside the House, who could make a useful contribution.
	I also agree that we need a debate on our policy in Iraq and the broader middle east. I would have been happy to see Parliament recalled in September. I would have been happy if last Monday, when we had some trivial Opposition day debate that attracted about four or five dozen Opposition Members, had been devoted to Iraq. The principal Opposition party could give a whole day to the subject, not just the three brief hours that the Scottish National party has obtained today. I appeal to my Front-Bench colleagues to make that time available.
	We have had a great deal of debate, however. What we have not had is agreement in this House that the positiontoppling Saddam Hussein and going in to help the Iraqi people hold elections for a democratic Governmentinvolved a decision with which some in the House fundamentally disagree.

Stewart Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Denis MacShane: With the time limits that have been set, I would rather not.
	We had a vote at the time on that policy, and we then had a general election, so we have had the democratic mandate of both this House and the people on the question of intervening in Iraq.

Several hon. Members: rose

Denis MacShane: Will hon. Members forgive me if do not give way because of the time limits?
	We now have a very odd position in which the Members who tabled the motionnot the amendment that was not selectedhave invited Members to forget party affiliation and vote across party lines. I am fairly sure that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept that invitation. I put it to Opposition parties that they consider my invitation not to indulge the Scottish National party by voting for the substantive motion, the only one before us tonight.
	I agree that Iraq poses an enormous challenge and great difficulties. At times, the present Secretary of Defence in America may be to President Bush what Senator Varus was to the Emperor Augustus. I invite the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) to interpret that bit of Roman history, but he is too busy writing articles explaining why Iran should have nuclear weaponswhether that is the official Conservative policy I do not know.
	Tonight we face a serious parliamentary decision. Do hon. Members who dislike this Government and believe that the duty of Her Majesty's Opposition is simply to oppose go into the Lobby, lock, stock and barrel, with the party that opposed our intervention in Kosovo and would have left Milosevic in power, and opposed our intervention in Iraq and would have left Saddam in powerthe party that has not found any tyrant or despot around the world that it is not willing to support as long as he is anti-American and anti-western?
	We are combating a new axis. It is an axis of insurgency, of jihadi fundamentalismwhat Joschka Fischer has called the new totalitarianismand, of course, of terrorism. I invite some hon. Members not to join the axis of opportunism offered by the Scottish nationalists this evening.
	We need a broader debate, one in which many voices can be heard in this House. I read with admiration contributions on this matter from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). I read last week in  The Guardian a very good contribution from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). I read the wise statements of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). There are people making serious contributions on the need for a whole new approach to Iraq and the middle east region.
	We have scores of thousands of troops of the western democracies engaged from the shores of Lebanon to the frontier mountains of Pakistan, trying to confront a situation that tactically and strategically we have not, I accept, got right. None the less, they are there at the invitation of Governments and under the authority of the United Nations.

John Baron: rose

Denis MacShane: I will not give way.
	I do not understand why the United States will not talk to Iran. I do not understand why France will not talk to Syria. I do not understand why Syria will not have an embassy in Beirut. I do not understand why very few Arab Governments will have diplomatic relations with Israel or why Israel will not talk to the elected leaders of the Palestinian people. But when there is complete refusal, on our part as much as on that of some of the actors in the region, to indulge in jaw-jaw, alas there is an alternative. That is why I want to see my Government leading a political and diplomatic offensive to start talking to the people whom we do not like. In the end, one makes peace with one's enemies, not one's friends.
	I conclude by inviting some fellow Membersnot the Scottish nationalists, who have never supported any attempt to liberate people from tyranny and despotism for as long as I have been in this Houseto have the honour of saying that they did not join this cheap anti-American crusade. I invite them not to call today for the Scottish nationalists' committee of inquiry. The Member who moved the motion has already referred to this war as illegal and immoral; he has decided what the outcome of the committee of inquiry will be before it has even met.
	I invite some Members to say that this House does not have to follow the cheap partisan lines on offer tonight. I invite them to vote with their conscience for further debates and, some time in the next Parliament, when our men are out, for a full inquiry. We should not tonight lower the honour of the House, which has sent its men to support a democratically elected Government, now under full UN authorisation. We should say to the world that the British House of Commons knows the meaning of honour. Members should not go into the Lobby to vote for this cheap, sectarian motion of which the Scottish National party should be ashamed.

Peter Tapsell: The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was, in my view, a strategic, political and humanitarian blunder of historic magnitude. It was a strategic blunder because the traditional aim of British foreign policy over the centuries, the maintenance of a balance of power in each region where we have a national interest, has been destroyed in the middle east. It rested on the balancing of the triangular animosities of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iranrespectively secular, Sunni and Shi'aeach hostile to the other two. That is why when Iraq invaded Iran in the 1980s, and it looked as though Iran would win the war, Britain and the United States gave much support to Saddam Hussein, despite his being already a proven warmonger abroad and a murderous tyrant at home.
	The major beneficiary of the overthrow of Saddam and his secular tyranny has been Shi'a, theocratic, nuclear Iran, a far greater threat to western interests today than Saddam was in 2003, with his by then non-existent weapons of mass destructionthe excuse for the invasion so shamefully advanced in the House by our Prime Minister, to his everlasting disgrace. I did not believe him then, and I voted against the invasion.
	The occupation of Iraq by foreigners has made Iran the most potent political force in the middle east, as Hezbollah recently demonstrated in Lebanon, so the neo-cons, who had long been plotting an attack on Iraq, in the event achieved nothing for Israel, and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are more than ever fearful of Iran.
	The invasion was a political blunder because the attack on Iraq divided the United Nations, divided NATO, divided the European Union, inflamed Islamic opinion against Britain at home and abroad, constrained British diplomatic influence and commercial success in the middle east and beyond, increased the influence of President Putin's Russia, weakened the world economy by forcing up the price of oil and, at a significantly lower level of importance, has largely destroyed the political reputation of our Prime Minister.
	The war was a humanitarian blunder because of the tragic deaths of so many British and American soldiers and the many more whose bodies have been maimed and whose lives have been ruined, and the sadness and suffering that that has brought to their families, which will stay with them for the rest of their lives. It was a humanitarian blunder also because of the countless and largely uncounted tens of thousands of wholly innocent non-combatant IraqisShi'a, Sunni and Kurdswho have been slaughtered, mutilated, orphaned or robbed of their homes and livelihoods by reason of the chaos into which the invasion has plunged the country that was Iraq, but can never be Iraq again.
	As a result of his tragic misjudgments in the middle east, our Prime Minister is, figuratively speaking, more deeply steeped in blood than any Scottish politician since Macbeth. We need an inquiry to tell us how he led us into this disaster, and to make sure that no vainglorious and ignorant Prime Minister can ever do so again.

Gavin Strang: Having asked the Leader of the House for a debate on the situation in Iraq, and having been disappointed at the time with his reply, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today's debate.
	The situation in which we find ourselves in Iraq is serious and worsening, and the House of Commons has not given the matter adequate consideration. I was one of the Members of the House who voted against the war before it was launched in March 2003. We were wrong to go to war when we did. To be justified, military action must be absolutely the last resort, when all other options have been exhausted. The military action was launched in the name of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but the alternatives to war to achieve that aim had not been exhausted. The House will remember that the United Nations weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq before they had had the opportunity to complete their work.
	Not only was the war unjustified, but it lacked the support of the international community. Having failed to get the support of the UN Security Council for a resolution authorising war, the US and UK went ahead and invaded anyway.

Mohammad Sarwar: Since the invasion of Iraq, 2,800 American soldiers, 120 British soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in this unnecessary, unjustified and illegal war. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the families of the victims in the United Kingdom and Iraq deserve to know what went wrong and what lessons should be learned from this tragic conflict?

Gavin Strang: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is speaking for his constituents when he makes that statement, and I agree.
	It was clear to me that launching this unjust and unauthorised war in the middle east would damage the coalition against international terrorism that had been put together since the atrocities of September 2001. I was also very concerned that invading Iraq could only help those violent extremists to turn new volunteers to their cause.
	In September 2003 the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I was then a member, published a report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We were able to make public that the Joint Intelligence Committee had said in February 2003 that al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to western interests, and that that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.
	As time has passed, those who support the invasion and occupation of Iraq have developed new and intriguing justifications for doing so, but none of them hold water. In recent months proponents of the war have argued that al-Qaeda was a force in Iraq prior to invasion, and that one of the justifications for invasion was to take on al-Qaeda in Iraq. That is just not true. In recent months it has been suggested that we had to go into Iraq because the US went in. That reflects an unsatisfactory analysis of the role of the UK in the world today. I am not sure whether the proponents of that argument think that being alongside the US in Iraq somehow gives us greater influence over US policy. Given the widespread recognition of the huge blunders that have been made following the invasion, surely that argument is also discredited.
	To those of us who argued that the situation in Iraq has been fanning the flames of terrorism in Iraq and world wide, Ministers have countered that we are making an excuse for terrorist outrages. I know of no Member of Parliament who would ever excuse such atrocities, but the evidence is increasingly decisive that the action in Iraq is fuelling terror. The current reality is that the war in Iraq is not a war against international terrorism; it is a war that is feeding international terrorism.
	The amendment tabled by the Government refers to improving conditions in Iraq. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends sincerely want to see improved conditions in Iraq, but we must look at where we are after three and a half yearsthousands and thousands of Iraqis killed in the escalating post-war violence, terrorist attacks and kidnappings proliferating, basic utilities unavailable or unreliable. The situation faced by the troops in Iraq is increasingly harsh. Over 3,000 have died in Iraq, 120 of them British. Rightly, much attention has been directed at the sectarian killings between Sunnis and Shi'as, and there are also rival Shi'a groups fighting each other, but we should not lose sight of the fact that much violence is directed against the foreign occupying forces, especially in Sunni areas such as Falluja.
	I am concerned about the conditions of our service people. A constituent who came to my surgery to express her profound distress at Government policy in Iraq pointed out to me that soldiers went to the shops in Edinburgh to get decent footwear to take out to Iraq. The head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, expressed his own concerns two weeks ago and warned that we must not break the Army on the operation in Iraq.
	It is possible, as has been said, that some movement is taking place in the United States. Popular support for the US presence in Iraq is very low. The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, said yesterday that al-Qaeda is timing attacks to influence the mid-term elections. To me the fact that he said such a thing is an indication of the desperation in the pro-war leadership of the Republican party. Obviously, it is my profound hope that the outcome of the elections will lead to a real reappraisal of the situation in Iraq.
	General Sir Richard Dannatt gave a most illuminating insight a fortnight ago, when he advised that we should
	get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.
	After all the damage that we are responsible for in Iraq, I would not suggest that we can wash our hands of the future of the Iraqi people, but we must address the question of the extent to which the presence of British forces is part of the problem, and the change of policy that we clearly need to adopt in Iraq must reflect that assessment.
	In conclusion, we were wrong to go to war in Iraq, and we cannot wash our hands of the harm that we have done. However, we must not allow ourselves to be influenced by simplistic slogans such as cut and run or stay the course. Instead, we must make an honest assessment of what we can achieve in Iraq that is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and our own service personnel.

Malcolm Rifkind: The best debates in this House are when hon. Members on both sides find themselves in almost total agreement, and I pay tribute to what the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has just said.
	It is a depressing illustration of the Government's indifference to this House that the Foreign Secretary, in the first debate of more than two years on the Floor of the House specifically on Iraq, left the Chamber shortly after her own speech and will presumably not return until the winding-up speeches. The Foreign Secretary and the Government have been reluctant to answer to this House for far too long.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has raised this valuable debate. However, I must say that I am slightly nervous in one respect, because the Government may seek to use the debate to avoid pressure which they otherwise deserve. It is extraordinary that on an issue such as going to warthe war has led to the disastrous consequences referred to by many hon. Membersit has been three years since the last Government-initiated debate, which took place before the war had even begun. Since then, not only have several thousand coalition servicemen lost their lives and, probably, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis been slaughtered, but we have seen the disintegration of that country, which is unlikely to be reversed. We have also seen sectarianism that is the opposite of what both this Government and the United States Government intended. So far, the only serious beneficiary of the war is the Iranian Government, who are now clearly the power in the region. That extraordinary consequence of Bush-Blair policy was far from what they intended.
	Today is not the day to go into the merits and details of the policy, but if we live in a parliamentary democracy in which the Government are accountable to Parliament for the way in which they conduct their affairs, then not having a debate in Government time for three years on a matter as serious as going to war is an extraordinary disgrace of which the Government ought to be ashamed. In reply to my earlier question, the Foreign Secretary said, We have had debates on foreign policy. We have had debates on defence. No doubt we will have a day on this subject as part of the Queen's Speech debate. That is hopeless and unacceptable. The Government's policy has failed so far, and they are in denial. If they want to recover support in this House and in the country, they must have the guts to come to the Dispatch Box to explain and defend their policy, not once every three years but on a regular basis, to allow their claims to be tested.
	Today's motion is justified because the troops in Iraq and the nation as a whole are not impressed by the argument that this Parliament, which they elected to represent their interests, cannot be trusted to debate these matters without destroying the morale of our forces in Iraq. That argument is absurd, and the Government should be ashamed of itindeed, I doubt whether they believe itand it should not be repeated.

Eric Joyce: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who tabled the motion, has said that he has
	brought forward a motion to impeach Blair.
	Is that not a good reason for the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to support the motion?

Malcolm Rifkind: I go by the terms of the motion, which does not mention those words. Frankly, that is a separate issue.

Jim Devine: rose

Malcolm Rifkind: No; I am sorry, but I have limited time.
	Some of us were always against the war, while others, on both sides of the House, were in favour of it. That does not necessarily make it any easier to reach a judgment on what should happen now and on whether our troops should be withdrawn. I happen to take the view that precisely because the war was an extraordinary and foolish mistake we do not have the luxury of withdrawing our troops immediatelyif we conclude that we should not have gone there in the first place. We must reach an honest and objective judgment on whether the balance of interests for the people of Iraq is served by our continuing presence in that country. The arguments in favour of that proposition are, I regret to say, getting weaker and weaker as the months go by.
	The Government need to answer certain questions. What will it take for them to admit that their policy has been a failure? How many more people have to dieBritish troops, American troops and Iraqi civilians? How much further has the disintegration of Iraq to go? We are sometimes asked, Were you not pleased to see Saddam Hussein go? Of course I was. If I were a political opponent of the previous Iraqi Government, I would probably be better off now than I was during Saddam's time, but I regret to say that the lives of the vast majority of Iraqis, including those who have no interest in politics, are vastly worse today than they were three years ago in terms of security, life expectancy, access to public utilities and ability to live their lives without fear. I bitterly regret having to make that point.
	The Government must reach a view. When will they admit to this House and to the people of this country that the policy was a fundamental error? That is important not only because confession is good for the soul, but because until the Government accept the failure of their policy, their proposals determining where we go from here will not carry any credibility. If they are seen simply to be defending themselves in an impossible situation, they will carry no authority with regard to future policy.
	The relationship between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States has been central to the Government's policy. The Liberal Democrat spokesman was right to refer to what is happening in the United States, where an extraordinary public debate is taking place. Congress had a full debate on the issue as recently as June this year, and a commission was set up under James Baker with the co-operation of the White House. Massive issues are being discussed openly in the United States. What are the Government doing to contribute to that debate in the United States, or are we excluded from it? Will we simply receive instructions on what the United States Government have decided on either the withdrawal or the continuation of troops in the region? What are the Government doing to encourage an open debate in this country with people in the services, in politics or in other aspects of public life who have a contribution to make?
	The Foreign Secretary said only a few days ago that the fragmentation of Iraq might happen and that it is up to the people of Iraq, as if the Government can be indifferent to that consequence. The Government must realise that if Iraq were to disintegrate, which may be the result of their policy, it would have enormous consequences for stability in the Gulf and the middle east as a whole. That outcome would remove an important state in that region, further increase the power of Iran and make the task of obtaining stability in the region much more difficult.
	I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall conclude by saying the following, and I make no apology for it. The Government have lived a lie for the past three years. They took this country to war on a false prospectus, and tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, have died as a consequence. The situation in the middle east has never been worse, and both the US Government and the British Government are responsible. This is not the worst disaster since Suez, because it is worse than Suez, and it is worse than Vietnamat least in Vietnam the war had already begun when the Americans intervened to help one side. On this occasion we actually started the war, which has had horrific consequences. If the motion forces the Government, most of whose members are absent from the Chamberthe Prime Minister did not even turn up in the first placeto realise that their policy will not carry credibility until they claim not only the minimal successes, but the massive failures, then the debate will have been worth while.

Ian Lucas: On 17 March 2003, I voted against my Labour Government for the first time. It was one of two occasions when I have voted against the Labour Whip. When considering the motion before the House, it is relevant to look back at the reasons why I, and many colleagues, voted against the Government on that day. I was very clear in my own mind that I did not support military action because it was not supported by a United Nations resolution. I had been particularly impressed with the work of Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors in the difficult situation during the months leading up to the decision to commit troops, and therefore followed every word that he said and set great store by it.
	About two years after we decided to commit troops to Iraq, I attended a meeting addressed by Hans Blix in this House and was struck by what he had to say. He told us that in March 2003 it was his belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Before today's debate, I looked at the Prime Minister's speech from 17 March 2003. It was very clear from what he said on that dayand it has always been my judgmentthat he believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but I still voted against the Government. I did so because I believe in the rule of law and that international action must be governed by the United Nations, and I took the view that we had not exhausted all available options to avoid war.
	On that day, I had already made my decision. I remember coming to the debate and hearing what the Prime Minister had to say. He made his case very eloquently and powerfully. However, I had already met him to discuss the position. I met him eyeball to eyeball and asked him about weapons of mass destruction. I take the view, as I always have, that his honest belief was that those weapons existed in Iraq. I resent the constant assertions by Opposition Members that the Prime Minister in some way misled the House. I do not believe that he did; I believe that he made an honest and genuine mistake. I still believe that it was a mistakeI wish that the decision had never been madebut I cannot support the opportunistic, cynical motion that is before the House today. The nationalists are engaged in a constant campaign to slur the integrity of the Prime Minister, to attack the Labour Government and to make political capital for cheap political ends.

Peter Soulsby: My hon. Friend speaks of the mistakes that were made at the time. Indeed, in their amendment the Government talk of
	the importance of learning all possible lessons
	from what went wrong. Does he agree that there is a widely perceived inadequacy in the inquiries that have taken place so far, which have completely failed to address the mistakes that were made or to reassure the House and the public more widely that the lessons have been learned? Does he agree that in saying that this is not the right time for a major inquiry the Government would be in a much stronger position if they were to tell us when the right time would be?

Ian Lucas: My view is that in due course there will be an inquiry into the events that led to the troops being committed. However, the issue that was key for me will not be changed by any such inquiry because, as we all know, the United Nations did not pass a resolution authorising military action. The issue of weapons of mass destruction was not the issue that determined my vote. I note that the Government amendment refers to declining at this time to have an inquiry. I will support their amendment.
	Opposition Members are using the motion to obsess about the past at a time when Iraq is in a position of crisis. Last week, many of my colleagues and I heard the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Barham Salih, address members of the parliamentary Labour party. I am sure that he addressed Opposition Members too. He said that he needs our help and that we must not cut and run. I opposed the war in Iraq because I believed that it was wrong, but I believe that we have a moral obligation to support the people of Iraq. We created the difficulty in Iraq and we cannot leave until that position is resolved.

Stewart Jackson: rose

Ian Lucas: I will not give way, because the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) refused to give way to me, no doubt because he was frit. Opposition Members are cynical opportunists who are exploiting the motion for cynical political ends. They should be addressing the position in Iraq today. They should be looking at the future of Iraq and listening to the elected representatives in Iraq who are saying, We need your helpgive it. Let us stop obsessing about the past and work together for the future of Iraq.

Charles Kennedy: For personal reasons that the House will well understand, this is the first time that I have contributed formally to a debate since stepping down as leader of the Liberal Democrats. Let me put on the parliamentary record the genuine gratitude of myself and my family to colleagues on both sides of the House, in all parties, for the expressions of goodwill and support that we have enjoyed and much appreciated over the course of the past few months. I am particularly grateful to be contributing to this debate, on this of all issues, which probably consumed more of my time as leader of the Liberal Democrats than just about any other, short of fighting general election campaigns.
	I have two brief backward-looking reflections that are central to the whole issue of having an inquiry now. First, during the build-up to the Iraq war, I repeatedly asked the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions whether there were any circumstancesgiven that the Ministry of Defence must plan for all sorts of contingencies as regards any potential trouble spot anywhere in the world that might involve British forcesin which the British Government would not have backed the Americans had they decided to invade Iraq without the authority of the United Nations. That seemed a reasonable question, yet the Prime Minister never answered it. That creates the obvious suspicion that there was never a contingency in his mind that involved anything other than going in with the Americanspreferably with a second UN mandate, but if that was not forthcoming, then without it. We have subsequently read in Mr. Woodward's book about assurances that the Prime Minister possibly gave, including when he met the President in Crawford at his ranch. That in itself merits a legitimate inquiry, because it has never been properly addressed by any of the inquiries that have taken place.
	Secondly, I recall the role played by the Conservatives. I do not want in any way to shatter the convoluted consensus that the former leader of the Conservative party, who is now its foreign affairs spokesman, sought to fashion earlier, but we should remember the time when Conservative Members were shouting out things like Charlie Chamberlainshowing, I always felt, a paucity of knowledge of the history of their own parliamentary partyand failing to ask the pertinent questions about what became known as the dodgy dossier.
	I can tell the Houseas I had my briefing in No. 10 a few minutes laterthat the Prime Minister was as taken aback as anyone when the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), emerged from No. 10 Downing street and announced on its steps that war was now both inevitable and desirable, which was not even the official position of the Government at that point.
	The Conservatives have not exactly played their part in asking pertinent questions, which is why inquiries remain outstanding. When the Conservatives had the chance of the Butler inquiry, which we decided not to join because its remit was not sufficient, they gave their member of the committee a Privy Counsellorship so that he could join it. They then came out, but their member said that he was not coming out. He stayed in, I presume, as some kind of country club member. He continued with his Privy Counsellorshipand, of course, the Butler inquiry satisfied nobody. Worst of all, the Butler inquiry's conclusions were dismissed by the Prime Minister in less than 60 seconds in a subsequent debate in the House.
	I wish the shadow Foreign Secretary well in building convoluted consensus, of which we have a little tonight. On that track recordwho knows?he might yet form the amorphous new European conservative parliamentary grouping in Brussels on which he seems to be working so hard.
	I want to address some points briefly. First, the Foreign Secretary has asked why we should request an inquiry now. The reason is that all the previous inquiries were insufficient. Does that undermine the troops? I remember going to the memorial service as party leader, and talking to parents and relatives of those who have lost their lives. Some supported the Government's action in Iraq, and some opposed it. I asked each and every one whether it was right for me, and for us, to question the wisdom of the action. Whatever their view on the rights or wrongs of the war, they said, Our sons and daughters have given their lives in Iraq supposedly in the name of freedom and democracy. If you people back in Westminster cannot exercise and exhibit that freedom and democracy, what were they doing there in the first place?
	Secondly, we have heard about the debate taking place in the United States against the background of the mid-term Congressional elections. Mr. Baker is no soft touch. He was the Secretary of State for the first President George Bush who was told to tell Tariq Aziz across the table that if the Iraqis dared to use chemical or biological weapons against the allied forces after the invasion of Kuwait, the response would be, to use his word, disproportionate. If, in the charged electoral context of the United States, somebody like that can play such a pivotal role, what on earth has the British House of Commons to fear from a sensible inquiry at this point?
	Finally, as the goalposts have kept moving throughout this tragic episode, the Prime Minister said at one point that there was a great moral case, and at another that the action was a strategic defence of our interests, as we were under a 45-minute threat of potential obliteration. But what did he say in the final debate in the House before the fateful decision was made? Even at that late stagethe record shows ithe said that Saddam and his sons could save their regime if they complied with the weapons inspectors. So much for the moral argument being put forward at the time.
	The truth will out one day. We will never know how many people lost their lives. On the political tombstone of this Prime Minister will be the word Iraq. For hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians in that country there will never be a tombstone, and we will never know their names. More than a hundred soldiers from our country, although we do know their names, are lost. The same is true of thousands of soldiers from the United States. It has been a tragedy, and the House cannot shy away from it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I understand that those on the Front Bench want to start the wind-up at 6.40, and I will co-operate with that.
	The debate is essential, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) for securing it in the first place. It is a debate about our role as Members of Parliament in holding the Government and the Executive to account. That is what we are sent here for. That is why people vote in parliamentary elections. If we want to do something to restore people's confidence in the democratic process in this country, we should support the motion at 7 o'clock.
	We should do that for several reasons. The inquiries that are necessary into the war in Iraq might spare us involvement in future conflicts. They will open up the books and the record on what happened in the run-up to the war in 2003. In an earlier intervention, I asked the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr about just one example of that. In 2002, the Prime Minister met the President of the United States on several occasions, many summit meetings were held, troops were deployed to the theatre of war, and there were constant reports about the weapons inspectors, who were apparently having success both in ridding Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction or the ability to make them, and in reducing the appalling human rights abuses that Saddam Hussein and his regime had been committing against the people of that country. A serious process was going on.
	Using our power in the Security Council, however, we prevented the weapons inspectors from going back into Iraq in January 2003. At the same time, massive public demonstrations took place, including the million-plus march in London and equivalent sized demonstrations in the USA. I had the privilege of attending the one in London, and of attending an enormous one in San Francisco. There was always huge opposition to the war in the USA, and as President Bush is about to find out next week, that opposition has grown a lot bigger. We need answers to that question about the weapons inspectors.
	We also need answers to the question of the legality of the war. Let us consider the way in which United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 was constantly prayed in aid by Ministers as a justification for the war. There is no justification for war when no ever-ready, real or present threat existed, when there were no weapons of mass destruction, and when no weapons were going to be fired off at 45 minutes' notice. What we had was a President backed into a corner and troops in theatre, so we had to go for it. The war duly took place.
	As other Members have pointed out, since the troops arrived in Iraq, according to  The Lancet, 650,000 Iraqis, more than 2,000 American soldiers and more than a hundred British soldiers have lost their lives. In my involvement with the Stop the War campaign, I have met many of the families of British soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq. In my constituency, I have also met many Iraqis seeking asylum from both Saddam Hussein and the current situation. None of them praised Saddam Hussein, but all thought that the situation was now more dangerous and worse than when the invasion took place. Those views need to be heard, and the inquiries need to be held.

Wayne David: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jeremy Corbyn: No. I have only one minute left.
	I want the motion to be carried so that we establish a committee of inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the run-up to the war, the aftermath of the war in Iraq and what we do in future. We live in a world where terrorism has been encouraged by the invasion of Iraq, and, I believe, by the continued presence in Afghanistan. If we want to live in a world of perpetual wars throughout this century, we are going the right way about it. If we want to live in a world of peace and justice, we need to examine how we got into this perilous situation, why we are continuing in it, and what we are doing to address the grievances in the worldPalestinian grievances, the gap between rich and poor, and all the other problems facing the planet. That is the way forward. We should examine our consciences and what we have done, and learn the lessons from that.

Alex Salmond: It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), because if I remember correctly he was one of 23 hon. Members who, two years ago, started the campaign to bring parliamentary accountability to the situation. Over those two years, the motion put forward for discussion has changedit has had toand tonight 170 Members from both sides of the Chamber, including Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, Independent and Conservative Members, are brought together to endorse the motion before the House.

Jim Devine: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Salmond: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me a minute or two to develop my point first. I certainly will not forget him: he signed the early-day motion. I just hope that he has the courage to follow his conscience into the Lobby this evening. No doubt he will tell us in a minute or two.
	I pay tribute to the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrat party for their position on the war. It was not so difficult for us to follow through on that position because we are united as parties, but when Labour and Conservative Members differ from their party it may take a great deal of moral courage to go against what their Front-Bench spokesmen say. The fact that the motion is being debated in the House is a demonstration of Back-Bench responsibility. It is the duty of Parliament to hold the Government to account.
	Last Wednesday, I remember that the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) that he would be delighted to debate Iraq in the House at any time. Clearly, tonight was not convenient for the Prime Minister. He would have been well advised to turn up, because the Foreign Secretary did not give him the sort of defence that I would like her to give me, if my conduct was being examined.

Jim Devine: rose

Alex Salmond: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I promised to give way to him, and I shall.

Jim Devine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Let me say to him, in a comradely way, You tube, because I have just been watching him on YouTube, where he says:
	On Halloween the ghost of Iraq will return to haunt Blair. The SNP and Plaid Cymru have put down a motion to impeach Blair and hold him to account.
	What is it to beimpeachment or an inquiry?

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman should accept that we ought not to allow the Leader of the Opposition to be the only politician on YouTube. I would not want to condemn the youngsters of this country to such a situation. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, rather than preparing his question, he would know that that I referred to precisely that issueto the 23 Members, including the hon. Member for Islington, North, who came together to introduce a motion of impeachment. However, it was argued that we should change the motion for two reasons. The first was to broaden the base, because it is not just the Prime Minister who is responsible. Ministers have collective responsibility, and it was Government policy that took us into Iraq. The second reason, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows even though he is relatively new, was that the process of impeachment is a trial in Parliament by the House of Lords. Given what I found out recently about the complexion of Members in the House of Lords, I now think that Members of the House of Commons are the right people to hold such an inquiry. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
	I am glad to see that the Foreign Secretary has returned to her place. Earlier, she made the extraordinary proposition that it was not the right time to hold an inquiry. Apparently, we can allow an inquiry by Lord Butler and Lord Hutton when our troops are in the field, but not a parliamentary inquiry. What kind of argument is that? I know that the Foreign Secretary only recently took up her post, and perhaps she is not yet fully in command of her brief, but when she was asked a direct question by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)a member of the Foreign Affairs Committeeabout its inquiry, she said that there had been no Government obstruction of that inquiry. That is remarkable, because I have before me the title of the first special report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which reads Implications for the Work of the House and its Committees of the Government's Lack of Co-operation with the Foreign Affairs Committee's Inquiry into The Decision to go to War in Iraq. If the Foreign Secretary wants to be a success in her position and to defend the Prime Minister, she should familiarise herself with the work of that Select Committee.
	I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary pray in aid my old friend Tam Dalyell against the Franks committee. I am in no doubt whatever about which Lobby Tam Dalyell would go into this evening, if he were still in the House. There are three basic arguments for the motion. The first concerns parliamentary accountability. It is pretty unprecedented in recent times, but the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) reminded me that Lord Liverpool, in 1855, fell on just such a motion

Peter Tapsell: Lord Aberdeen.

Alex Salmond: Yes, it was Lord Aberdeen who, in 1855, fell on just such a motion, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is claiming to have personal knowledge of that debate. Nonetheless, we should be reminded by history that it is not unprecedented for a motion to have such results. I have listened to every word of this debate, unlike the Foreign Secretary, and so can say that we should have such debates more often in the House, because they do us enormous credit. The debate is on current events in Iraq, as well as the history of the war. That is why the motion refers to the war and its aftermath.

Jim Sheridan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Salmond: I will, in a second or two.
	The Foreign Secretary shook her head when my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who moved the motion, suggested that she had admitted that historians might judge the Iraqi adventure a foreign policy disaster. I have with me the transcript of her interview on BBC Radio 4. Asked whether historians might ultimately conclude that the war was a foreign policy disaster for Britain, the Foreign Secretary replied:
	Yes, they may. Then again, they may not.

Margaret Beckett: I am reluctant to intervene, but what the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) actually claimed was that I had said that the war was a disaster. I did not say that; I would never say that, and I am sick and tired of journalists putting words into my mouth, as they so frequently do.

Alex Salmond: Asked whether historians would judge Iraq to have been a foreign policy disaster, the Foreign Secretary said:
	Yes, they may. Then again, they may not.
	She will forgive us if that does not fill the House with confidence about her confidence in the policy on Iraq. She should accept that Members may judge, before historians do, whether the policy has been a disaster. Members might sometimes offer the Government some wisdom that could change the situation andwho knows?alter the course of events and save lives.

Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Salmond: Before I give way, the third reason for supporting the motion concerns what happens if the same circumstances arise in future. Surely we should look to the future. What happens if there is another conflict that the House is misled into supporting, and if we are bounced into another Iraq? The back-stop of full, parliamentary accountability will make any Government, and any Prime Minister, think again before taking the course that the Prime Minister took.

Jim Sheridan: rose

Alex Salmond: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a second, after I have taken an intervention from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short).

Clare Short: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we do not have an exit strategy on Iraq, and that the chaos can continue for many years to come? Does he agree that if we are to decide on an exit strategy, we first need to know why we were there, and does he agree that we should not accede to the American aspiration to set up permanent bases, which will almost certainly mean a permanent insurgency?

Alex Salmond: I agree with the right hon. Lady. I understand that she was at the Cabinet table when the decisions were being made, and I respect her opinion. Her doubts carry a great deal of credibilityperhaps more credibility than the words of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr of impugning the motives of the Attorney-General. I read the former Home Secretary's memoirs only a few days ago, and, as I understand it, they suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have fallen in behind the Prime Minister only because he was frightened of losing his job. When it comes to impugning motives, my hon. Friend can take lessons from the former Home Secretary.

Jim Sheridan: Those of us who know the hon. Gentleman from his work in Scotland know that he is a straight-talking guy, so before Members from both sides of the House go into the Lobby, can he tell us, unequivocally, whether he has said today that the motion is about the impeachment of the Prime Minister? Can he answer that question?

Alex Salmond: The motion began as an impeachment motion. [Hon. Members: Answer!] We tabled the motion that appears on the Order Paper to secure maximum unity across the House. It is concerned with parliamentary responsibility and accountability. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read it and follow his conscience by joining us in the Lobby.
	Many of us remember the debate on Iraq in which the Prime Minister said that it was palpably absurd not to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He told us that he had never made the argument for regime change when defending the decision to invade Iraq. He has made that argument many times since the invasion, because clearly he can no longer make the argument about weapons of mass destruction. Those are not matters of opinion, but of factwe know that there were not any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that the American justification that al-Qaeda was involved was tenuous at best. There was no connection with 9/11 to justify the invasion and the casualty toll as a result of the action is a matter of fact: 120 British soldiers and 2,821 American soldiers are dead. Tens of thousandsperhaps hundreds of thousandsof Iraqi civilians are dead. Those are the consequences of the decision by the House.
	Suez was raised a number of times in our debate, but casualties there did not approach the total that I have just given the House. Certainly, lives were lost, but not to the extent that they have been lost in Iraq16 British soldiers were lost at Suez, every one a tragedy; 1,650 Egyptians were killed, every one a tragedy. Compared with the consequences that have befallen us in Iraq, however, Suez is as nothing. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a campaign to save the world from climate change. They have spent $5 billion in Iraq and the Americans have spent $200 billion. What if those resources had been devoted to saving the planet, rather than starting an illegal war?
	Finally, our genuinely cross-party motion provides a chance to achieve parliamentary accountability. It is an opportunity for the House of Commons to live up to our constituents' expectations. It has been said that our soldiers would be discouraged if the motion were agreed, but they would be discouraged only if they thought that the House had forgotten them and was frightened to debate the implications of Iraq. They would be discouraged if they thought that Members were not prepared to table motions or consider how we can get out of the morass into which we have been led. It is the Government who refuse to debate or introduce policies, but it is the House of Commons, by voting in the Division Lobby tonight, that can finally hold them to account.

Adam Ingram: There is one thing that can be said about the nationalistsnever do a deal with them, because they have already eaten into my time. I shall come on to the shoddy deals that have been done.
	In opening this debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the historical context to explain why we engaged in Iraq. She mentioned the need to uphold the integrity of the United Nations, pointing out that for 12 years Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime had defied the authority of the international community. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that that entailed 18 resolutions. All of them, including the resolutions under chapter VII of the UN charter, were ignored by Saddam Hussein. There is no doubt that when the House considered the need to take action against Iraq on 18 March 2003 that was very much at the forefront of many right hon. and hon. Members' thinking.
	May I give one quote from that debate in the  Official Report that sums up that view and my assertion? It reads:
	Those who say that action is not necessary now must remember that we have passed so many deadlines, so many ultimatums, that not to take action now is to reduce the credibility of any action being taken...The Prime Minister has put before the House the right decision. He deserves the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House.[ Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 793.]
	That judgment was right then, and it is right now. It was made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) who, as shadow Foreign Secretary, now advocates that we revisit the decision that he strongly supported at the time. In his contribution, he asked a litany of questions about the past that needed to be answered. We have accepted, time and again

Bernard Jenkin: rose

Adam Ingram: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
	We have accepted that things could, and should, have been done differently. There is no question about thatit is a given statement of fact. At all times, however, we must analyse what is happening to find the best way forward and develop a course of action now and in future.

Frank Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is little hunger in our constituencies for a retrospective inquiry? However, will Ministers give an undertaking tonight that we will regularly return to this debate in future to determine what is best for our forces and what is best for Iraq?

Adam Ingram: My right hon. Friend has made a valid point. It has been said tonight that we have innumerable foreign affairs and defence debates, and we have tried to address the matter in those debates. We do not control what is said, and we must respond to the points that are made. There will be five more defence debates in the near future, and I am sure that there will be many other such opportunities. I am on record as saying that we must constantly make clear what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else where our troops are deployed. The short answer to my right hon. Friend's question is therefore yes.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks did not provide a single idea about how to deal with the present or with the way forward, which leads me to ask what type of evidence he and his party would give the inquiry. I believe that they are going to vote for it to be set up now, so he had better start thinking about what he is going to say, because he did not have an iota or shred of idea about how to move forward. His motives, and those of his party, must be called into question, not because they disagree with our actions in Iraq, but because they want to score a cheap political point to gain political advantage at a difficult time.
	I accept that that is part of the normal cut and thrust of our parliamentary democracy, but on this occasion it has arisen at a time when our armed forces are engaged in a mighty struggle alongside the legitimate Government of Iraq and their security forces. That is what makes it different. The hard logic is that Opposition parties are asking for an inquiry into the past, probably into the present andthis is not quite clearinto future strategy. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made plain, however, we are at a critical point in Iraq. Is it being suggested that we suspend our analysis of the way forward or change our course of action if required while we await the results of such an inquiry? That could be one implication of the motion. The judgment is that we have got it wrong in the past and present, and will probably do so in future.

William Hague: rose

Adam Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us how to do it better.

William Hague: What exactly prevents the Government from committing themselves to an inquiry at some point in future?

Adam Ingram: Well [ Interruption. ] I am not stumped. There have been a number of inquiries by the Select Committees on Defence and on Foreign Affairs, and by Lords Butler and Hutton. We have trawled through all the issues of the past. It seems to me that, whatever the motivation of Conservative Members, they are making a serious mistake. We should put ourselves into the minds of people who are currently serving in Iraq, those who have served and those who will serve in the months to come. Conservative Members know that we have an enemy that is looking for any signs of weakness, of loss of resolution or lack of determination. Those forces of evil do not understand the subtleties of democracy or the political point scoring of our parliamentary process, but they will recognise an opportunity when they see it. They will see an opportunity to carry out more attacks, take more innocent lives and create a breach in our resolve.
	I would have expected more from Her Majesty's loyal Opposition than the position in which they now find themselvesand who are their running mates in this particular approach? It is the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. At least they have been consistent. They oppose what we do as a United Kingdom and as a nation, because they want to undermine the Union. Let us not forget that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) condemned our actions in Kosovo and the Balkans. Let us not forget that the separatists of Scotland and Wales oppose our membership of NATO and, as a consequence, call into question our actions in Afghanistan. What they want is a show trial for narrow political ends. It is not about establishing new facts or new evidence. All the relevant material was examined in detail by the Butler and Hutton inquiries, by the Intelligence and Security Committee and by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has already indicated that he is not giving way and there are only a few minutes left for debate.

Adam Ingram: It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) rejected the conclusions of the reports that I mentioned. I suggest that he obviously has not read them and I also suggest that he do so.

David Hamilton: As one who voted against the Government on six different occasions on Iraq, unlike some of the hypocrites on the Opposition Benches [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark.

David Hamilton: I withdraw it.
	I was saying that I was different from some Conservative Members who voted for the Government and would have voted in favour of war even before the weapons of mass of destruction were put in place. I give the Minister my assurance that I will vote with the Government tonight, but I will also call for an inquiry when the last of our troops come home. That is the right time to conduct an inquiry.

Adam Ingram: I recognise my hon. Friend's honourable position on that issue.
	The nationalists give no support [Interruption.] I am trying to deal with some of the issues raised in our debate. The nationalists give no support to what our armed forces are doing in accordance with UN mandates in Iraq and Afghanistan. They take no pride in what we do as a nation in trying to bring peace, stability and democracy to so many troubled parts of the world. That is why I believe that they are strange bed-fellows for the Tories to associate with
	Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	 The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	 The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 264.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House, recognising that there have already been four separate independent committees of inquiry into military action in Iraq and recognising the importance of learning all possible lessons from military action in Iraq and its aftermath, declines at this time, whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards improving the condition of Iraq, to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention from this vital task.

Crossrail Bill (Carry Over)

[Relevant document: First Special Report from the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, Session 2005-06, on the Crossrail Bill: Woolwich Station, HC 1597.]

Mr. Speaker: Motions 3 and 4 on the Crossrail Bill will be debated together. I should also inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford).

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move,
	That further proceedings on the Crossrail Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends until the next Session of Parliament;
	That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Crossrail Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session
	(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
	(b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session;
	(c) the Instruction of the House to the Committee [19 July 2005] shall be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
	(d) all Petitions presented in this Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
	(e) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in this Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
	(f) only those Petitions mentioned in paragraph (d) above, and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
	(g) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;
	(h) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence taken before it;
	(i) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;
	(j) any person registered in this Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practice as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session;
	(k) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 2004-05, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
	Of the two motions before the House, one allows the Select Committee to consider petitions against the additional provisions to the Crossrail Bill that the Government intend to bring forward, and the other allows the Crossrail Bill to be carried over into the new Parliament. Explanatory memorandums on both motions are available in the Vote Office.
	I am conscious of the fact that, in addition to the motions, several issues have arisen as a result of the Select Committee's deliberations that have given rise to questions of procedure, specifically on the affordability of Woolwich station. The House will be aware that the Crossrail Bill Committee produced a special report on Woolwich last night. I propose to address all those issues in this debate and I shall begin by setting out briefly the purpose of the Bill. I shall then discuss the procedures that have been followed on Crossrail to date and address the issue of the affordability of Woolwich station, before turning finally to the detail of the two motions.
	It may assist the House if I rehearse the purpose of the Bill and the procedures that have been followed so far. The Second Reading, on 19 July 2005, agreed the principle of the Bill, which is to construct Crossraila railway that will run between the termini at Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east and Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west. The main new intermediate stations will be at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, the Isle of Dogs and Custom House. The Bill enables Crossrail to be constructed and puts in place the necessary powers to allow the Crossrail services to run.
	I remind the House that this is a hybrid Billa form used for projects of national importancein which the Government take the lead in strategic development, but crucially, because the Bill affects specific private interests, it is dealt with differently in both Houses of Parliament. Hybrid Bills are rare; the last one concerned the channel tunnel rail link a decade ago. The Bill has aspects of both a public and a private Bill. It is brought forward by Government and, like any other public Bill, contains provisions that affect everyone or particular classes of people. However, the Bill also contains provisions that have an impact on particular individuals, notably in relation to the powers to acquire particular land. That is why the House requires such a Bill to incorporate an extra Select Committee stage in each House.
	Within the process of the hybrid Bill, it is open to the Select Committee, after listening to petitions and representations, to make recommendations. However, it is equally clear that only the Government, as promoter, can reach decisions about affordability, as my predecessor as Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, made clear in the previous instructions debate on 12 January. When we get the Select Committee's report, the Government will have to take a view about how much we can accommodate. Only the House can grant an instruction.

Eric Pickles: Does the Secretary of State agree that the new Minister with responsibility for Crossrail is right when he says that the case for it has to be financially robust? The Minister also said that the choice is Crossrail without Woolwich or no Crossrail. Is the financial case so delicate that Woolwich would push it over the edge? If so, why not examine other stations?

Douglas Alexander: I will come on to the specific issue of the affordability of Woolwich. I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the passage of the Bill, both on Second Reading and in the instructions debate. I will certainly address the point that he raises in the course of my remarks.
	As I say, the hybrid Bill process allows the Select Committee, after listening to petitions and representations, to make its own representations. However, the Government believe that it is equally clear that only the Government, as the scheme's promoter, can reach decisions about affordability.
	Only the House can grant an instruction to enable a Select Committee to consider an additional provision. Therefore, with this and every previous hybrid Bill, the Select Committee involved has requested the Government to table an instruction for the House to consider. The Government, as promoter, must consider the expenditure implications of any proposal, including its impact on the scheme's overall affordability.

Simon Hughes: The next round of the comprehensive spending review will take place next summer, and that will have implications for the public finances. Does the Secretary of State anticipate that the Government will have decided by then about committing money to the scheme? Whatever happens tonight, will the financial green light be given by next July, all other things being equal?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has alluded already to the size of the sums involved, and it is appropriate for the Government to consider how the project can be funded. We have made it clear that the decisions about the next stages of the funding process should await the outcome of the Lyons review, which is due by the end of the year. The hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge that the Crossrail project's scale and significance means that those decisions should be made in the context of the broader discussions of the spending review.

Richard Ottaway: The question goes beyond affordability and how much the project will cost. Who is doing the paying? London is already taking an extra hit to pay for the 2012 Olympics, so does the Secretary of State agree that this very necessary project should be funded by the national taxpayer rather than the London taxpayer?

Douglas Alexander: That is an intriguing idea. The Government have always made it clear that the principal users of Crossrail, and the communities to which it will contribute, should make a contribution. That is why consideration is being given to an alternative funding mechanism, which will be considered in light of the Lyons review. As I said, that is due to report towards the end of the year.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State mentioned the communities that will benefit. Will there be additional track capacity between Shenfield and London? If not, how will the project affect the fast train service from East Anglia, which goes through north and mid-Essex and into London? Will the people who use that service lose out?

Douglas Alexander: This question has been raised before, in connection with the great western line out of Paddington rather than the great eastern line through Shenfield. There have been extensive discussions with industry, initially through a timetable working group and then in an industry forum that we have established. Inevitably, the construction of such a large project will affect services, but we are working towards finding an access option to enable us to ensure that normal services, to both east and west, will be accommodated comfortably. A great deal of work is being done to that end.

Mark Field: The Secretary of State has said that he wants this hybrid Bill to go through Parliament before a funding mechanism is decided. If that happens, and no money is forthcoming, tens of thousands of people in Mayfair, the Barbican, Bayswater and elsewhere will suffer housing blight, possibly for decades to come, with no sense that the work is making progress. Is he not concerned about that?

Douglas Alexander: I do not want properties in Mayfair or anywhere else to be blighted unnecessarily. We want this hybrid Bill to make expeditious progress through both Houses, and we also want to continue to make progress on the question of financing. However, given the scale of the project, it is appropriate that we adopt an approach that recognises the broader local government financing issues addressed in the Lyons review. After that, we intend to discuss an alternative funding mechanism, and it has been suggested that the London business community might be prepared to make a contribution. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will consider all factors.
	The Committee announced a set of interim conclusions on 25 July that covered a range of issues, including the idea of a station at Woolwich. The Committee took the view that the Government, as the promoter of the scheme, should bring forward an additional provision to add to the project a station at Woolwich. The House needs to be clear about the nature of that particular conclusion. It does not involve protecting private rights, or trying to remove or mitigate adverse effects that the project might cause. Instead, the conclusion is designed to increase the already substantial public benefits that the project will deliver. I am not aware of the Select Committee on any previous hybrid Bill ever seeking an additional station, or something comparable. Therefore, in forming a view on the Select Committee's report on Woolwich station, the promoter is inevitably drawn into new territory.

Nick Raynsford: I sought advice from the Library on this matter and was told that the hybrid Bill on the channel tunnel rail link proposed the addition of the station at Ebbsfleet. Does not that mean that his argument against the Select Committee's recommendation in respect of Woolwich should be looked at again?

Douglas Alexander: I shall certainly consider the point that my right hon. Friend raises. I do not want to disappoint him, but in the rest of my remarks I shall seek to deploy various other arguments in defence of the Government's position in respect of Woolwich station.
	In light of the terms of the special report from the Select Committee, the Government believe that it is entirely reasonable for the Committee to express a view on the merits of Woolwich station and to invite the Government to consider whether to add that to the Bill. That consideration took place over the summer. However, private rights are not at stake in this case, so there is no obligation on the promoter to attach a special weight to the Select Committee's conclusion when considering whether to accept it in the Bill. The Committee's conclusion that the Crossrail project needs a station at Woolwich must be considered on its merits. The cost of such an addition would be high, so the Government must give particular consideration to whether it is affordable.
	The Government's view of the matter has always been clear. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport at the timemy hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Defencewrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 5 May this year, explaining that the high cost of a station at Woolwich was not affordable. To ensure that there was no doubt about our views, the letter was made formally available to the Select Committee before it took evidence about Woolwich. A copy is in the Library of the House.
	The key principlethat the Government, as scheme promoter, must retain the right to judge what is affordableis not one on which any Government could yield. Following the Select Committee's interim report, with its advocacy of Woolwich station, the company Cross London Rail Links was asked to determine whether there could be a cheaper alternative. Potential savings have been identified, but the estimated cost remains very high. The work done by CLRL suggests that the cost could be reduced to around 186 millionstill a huge sum of money.
	I have had to reach a view on whether the likely cost reduction would allow us to change the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton put to the Select Committee in May. After much consideration, my judgment is that we simply cannot add such a large cost to the project, which already represents a huge funding challenge. However, in a letter to the Select Committee Chairman, I indicated that, in light of the strength of feeling in the Committee on the matter, I was prepared to let CLRL undertake further work to see whether there was a way to reduce significantly the cost of the Woolwich station from the present 186 million.
	That work will involve more detailed analysis of the station's design and construction to establish that the proposal is feasible. It will then have to assess the scope for further cost-reduction options. The construction of such a station under ground would, under all circumstances, require a radical change well beyond the limits of deviation from the existing alignment of associated tunnels. That work will take some time to complete, but I hope to give some of my views to the Select Committee as soon as is practicable. I shall also ensure that the further work is completed before the Select Committee concludes its own work.

Mark Field: I am not here to make an argument in favour of or against Woolwich station, but we are talking about 186 million out of a total budget of 13 billion to 16 billion. That is barely 1 per cent. of the whole cost. For the entire issue to hinge on such a relatively small amount of money seems absolutely perverse. I would be interested to know on what basis the Secretary of State thinks that that 186 million somehow tips the whole costing entirely over the edge.

Douglas Alexander: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, only the Member representing Mayfair could suggest that 186 million is not a very considerable sum. To give a sense of proportion, that is approximately the same sum as that identified as savings during the progress of the hybrid Bill. It is a considerable sum by any measure, notwithstanding the fact that we already have a major work stream under way to drive down the costs of the Crossrail scheme to ensure that it is affordable. My decision was reached on the basis that we have an obligation to ensure not only that the hybrid Bill concludes its passage through this House and another place, but that we are able to get the financing and funding of the scheme in place. In his earlier intervention, the hon. Gentleman made the case for making real progress on financing. I struggle to see how the addition of 186 million now would assist the endeavour of making sure that we have an affordable scheme.

Eric Pickles: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way for the second time. Will he answer the question that I asked? Is the Minister with responsibility for Crossrail right that the choice that might be open to the Government is Crossrail without Woolwich or no Crossrail at all? Is money really that tight?

Douglas Alexander: I stand by all the comments that I have made. The scheme needs to be affordable. We made a considered judgment that the addition of not simply a station, but 186 million, was not affordable. That is why I wrote to the Committee in the terms that I did.

Eric Pickles: So Crossrail is off?

Douglas Alexander: No: for precisely the reasons that I have given, we want to ensure that Crossrail is on. We want to make sure that this scheme is affordable. We as the Government have an obligation not simply to take forward the promotion of the project through the hybrid Bill process, but to ensure, through the value-engineering that CLRL is taking forward, that we are able to find the funding for the scheme. I would have hoped that there would be cross-House consensus on that.

Clive Efford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the position that he has taken on Woolwich station; it has given us more time to examine the costs. I ask him when he is looking at those costs not to look at them only in the context of Woolwich station. Woolwich was taken out of the scheme largely because of the original value that was put on the cost of building the station. What we need to do is go back and examine the merits of the whole scheme, and look not only at Woolwich in isolation, but at reducing the costs across the whole of Crossrail which might allow Woolwich back into the scheme.

Douglas Alexander: I fear that I might disappoint my hon. Friend. A station at Woolwich has never been part of the Crossrail Bill scheme. It is correct that it was an option considered by CLRL before it submitted its interim business case to the Department for Transport in February 2003, but by then the station had been removed from the scheme. I have an overriding obligation to ensure not only that we continue to make progress with the parliamentary passage of the Bill, but that the financing of the scheme can be secured.

Robert Wilson: I have listened to the arguments that the Secretary of State has just deployed about Woolwich. Will he make the same arguments about Reading as a potential western terminus?

Douglas Alexander: The position in relation to Reading is fundamentally different, given that it is beyond the bounds of the Bill that was introduced. Of course, this was a matter of considerable discussion in previous debates before the House, and the Government gave an undertaking on the scope of the examination by the Select Committee, and I do not resile from the undertakings given by my predecessor in those debates. However, the position on Reading has not changed. We are awaiting the conclusion of the Select Committee's work on the question of safeguarding of land. It would be under a transport works legislation undertaking, rather than through the hybrid Bill process, that any further progress would be made in light of the deliberations of the Committee.
	The second motion allows the Committee to consider petitions against the additional provisions to the Crossrail Bill that the Government intend to introduce. The first motion allows the Bill to be carried over into the new Parliament. Additional provisions are changes to the Bill that affect some private interests differently from others. Just like the Bill itself, additional provisions must be published, advertised and assessed environmentally, and trigger their own petitioning period. People affected by additional provisions will, therefore, have the opportunity to petition against them and be heard by the Select Committee.
	Members will have seen the explanatory memorandum that sets out the rationale behind each of the changes. Amendments will be introduced by the Government to give effect to them, and the Select Committee will give decisions about which proposals should be adopted in light of the evidence put before it. The additional provisions that are being introduced reflect the Committee's interim conclusions, changes to the project in light of petitioners' concerns and development of the project in light of discussions with stakeholders, or are a result of efforts to reduce the project cost or minor technical changes. We intend to bring forward those additional provisions next Tuesday, at which point a newspaper notice will be published to alert affected parties. That will trigger a five-week petitioning period on each additional provision, following which the petitions lodged will be considered by the Committee in the usual way.
	Let me turn to the carry-over motion. Hybrid Bills are routinely carried over from one parliamentary Session to another and from one Parliament to another, given that the additional Select Committee stages add substantially to the time taken on them, compared with an ordinary public Bill. This is therefore a straightforward procedural step. It was used for the channel tunnel Bill in the 1980s, the channel tunnel rail link Bill in the 1990s, and previously for the Crossrail Bill.
	Crossrail is important not only for the economic development of London but, because of London's role, for the economic development of the wider UK economy. This is a huge project, and it deserves the support of the whole House. I commend the motions to the House.

Chris Grayling: As the Secretary of State said, these are fundamentally procedural motions. To a significant extent, they continue the debates that we had in the House six months ago, and those which took place between his predecessors and my predecessors in 2005. Simply continuing the Select Committee process and the debate about the detail of the Crossrail project from this Parliament to the next one is not contentious. We will certainly not do anything other than provide our support for the motions.
	I wait with interest to hear the remarks of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) about Woolwich station. He has raised some legitimate concerns. I understand the Secretary of State's perspective on costs; anyone in his position clearly has to focus on cost. But there are other issues in relation to Woolwich, and I hope that the work that he has described will be able to contribute to taking forward thinking on that part of the project.
	I also commend Committee members of all parties for the work that they are doing on the project. Membership of the Crossrail Committee is certainly one of the most arduous parliamentary tasks of this year, and they ought to be commended for the diligence and patience with which they have done their work, the care with which they have brought forward proposals to amend the Bill, and the time that they have committed to the substantial number of petitioners who have rightly wanted to have the opportunity to have their say about the detail of the Crossrail project.
	Although we are not in dispute over the motion, which is a procedural matter passing debate on from one parliamentary session to the next, that means, of course, yet more time passing for a project that, the Secretary of State will know from looking back at the work of his predecessors, was supposed to be happening already. If he looks back to the famous 10-year plan for transport published five years ago by his predecessor with responsibility for such matters, the Deputy Prime Minister, he will see that this project was due to be finished by 2010.
	As was said at the time:
	The Plan includes 8 billion of public investment and 10 billion of private investment for transport in London. Together with public resource expenditure of 7 billion this gives a total of 25 billion over ten years...assuming the broad approach set out above, the following could be delivered with this level of investment
	by 2010. There is then a list of what could be delivered, including
	a new east-west rail link, such as CrossRail, delivering up to a 15 per cent. increase in total national rail and Underground seats into central London during the morning peak.
	The big unanswered question that lies behind this debate is: what is going to happen? We are taking through a debate about the detail of the project. We are securing the rights in law to make that project come to fruition. There is no doubt that the underlying issue as it affects London transport is very substantial. Capacity on all rail links into central London is a major problem. There is increased congestion on the rail network in and around Londonincluding the underground, but not only that. I came in from St. John's Wood this morning at about 10.30 and the train was absolutely packed. Anyone who is a regular commuter into one of London's main termini knows just how full the trains are and how often they exceed the passengers in excess of capacity limits. Somewhat bizarrely, in the past few weeks one major rail company operating in London has said that it is going to increase capacity by ripping out seats in order to create more room for people to stand. This is the reality of transport in London today.

Mike Gapes: Given that Crossrail is going to provide 40 per cent. of the additional new capacity for London's transport system in the next decade, does the hon. Gentleman agree, and will he state categorically now, that there should be no delay on this project, and that his party does support it?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The fortunes of the City of London, of Canary Wharf and of the west end as a business centre

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given the assurance that he has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), will he take this opportunity to deny the  Evening Standard story of 2 June in which his aide, Campbell Storey, was quoted as saying the following in an e-mail to the office of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne):
	Funding, publicly our position is: we don't think the Government is serious about this. Privately: it is the wrong project (bad route, too expensive) and we wouldn't want to be associated with it.
	So which is it? Does the hon. Gentleman support his aide, or does he support Crossrail?

Chris Grayling: First, I am very disappointed to hear the Secretary of State quoting from an e-mail that was stolen from my office. May I ask him not to make use of such material in future, because in doing so we offer a route for people to take advantage of illegal methods of obtaining information? Let me be clear about this issue, which I will address later. There are problems with the route and with the costings. Is the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) saying to me that by the time that my party can take office2009 or 2010we will not be inheriting a project that is under way? Is he saying that I will find it in my in-tray, as the new Secretary of State, after the next general election, and that I will take a decision on that project myself?

Mike Gapes: As Chairman of the all-party group on Crossrail, I am urging all parties in this HouseI hope that the hon. Gentleman can speak for his party on this matterto support Crossrail, now and in future.

Chris Grayling: There is an interesting question, which I will throw back at the Secretary of State. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is right and that this decision will be waiting for me in 2009 or 2010, but if so, some significant damage will have been done to the project, and I shall explain why to the Secretary of State in a moment.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am afraid that I am not very brightis the hon. Gentleman saying that he is committing to this amount of expenditure, irrespective of what it does to the rest of the transport budget, or not?

Chris Grayling: I was about to come to the question of cost. The hon. Lady is absolutely right, in that we do not actually know how much the project is going to cost

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I may be rightbut what is the answer?

Chris Grayling: I do not know what the cost of the project is, and I am waiting with interest to find out. The Secretary of State cannot tell us today what the cost is, and he cannot commit the budget to itI would be grateful if he would correct me if I am wrong. Do the Government know exactly what the cost of the project is, and can they commit to funding it? No. So how can I, in opposition, without the teams of civil servants that the Secretary of State has access to, judge what cost I would be committing to?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I will not hold him to figures, because that is embarrassing. Can he just give us a simple undertaking that it is his intention, irrespective of cost, to support the project? That is a very simple question, and a yes or no will do.

Chris Grayling: May I remind the hon. Lady that her party is in government and mine is not?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I know that.

Chris Grayling: Much as I would like to, I cannot become Secretary of State for another three years. If the Secretary of State wants to leave office tomorrow, I will take the decision, but the person to whom the hon. Lady should be addressing her question is the Secretary of State.
	If the Bill goes through in 2007, are the Government going to start construction of Crossrail in 2008? If not, the project team will have to be disbanded and the project's future will be uncertain. Are we going to hear in next summer's spending review a commitment from the Chancellor of the Exchequerif he is still Chancellor at that pointto finding the money to build Crossrail? As of today, I have heard no evidence whatever to suggest that the Government are poised to announce funding, so I am looking forward to 2009-10 uncertain as to what I am going to inherit. I could inherit a Bill that has been passed into law but for which there is no funding, or a project that is under way. But right now, I turn the question back to the Secretary of State. In the next 12 months, when this Bill is passed, is he going to fund it or not? Is he prepared to stand up and give a commitment today that he will fund it?

Douglas Alexander: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that, as I said earlier, project costs were discussed when the Bill was deposited, and value- engineering work has been taken forward? Following the conclusion of the Lyons review at the turn of this year, there will be further discussions on the alternative funding mechanism, which is the appropriate and sensible way to take forward the project's funding.

Chris Grayling: I take it that that is a maybe, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We do not know what the Government's funding intentions really are. As of today, there is no money set aside in the Department for Transport's budget to pay for Crossrail, so we are debating a Bill to set up powers for which, at the moment, no resources are available to bring to fruition.
	There is talk in the City

Eric Pickles: I am puzzled, as I am sure that my hon. Friend is, by all this talk of Sir Michael Lyons. At a meeting that I attended with Sir Michael a few months ago, he expressed genuine bemusement at these references to the Lyons report. He does not intend to make any substantive recommendations about Crossrail. So this is just a delaying mechanism: nothing is going to happen after December.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. I have said all along that I fear that the Crossrail Bill is a confidence trick on the part of this Government. They are seeing this process through and putting the Bill into law, for whatever political reasons; but unless and until I see from them a funding commitmenta clear statement of intentor an indication as to where from within the budget the money is going to come, I will not take this project seriously.
	The Secretary of State asked me about routes. There are some significant drawbacks to the chosen route, and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) made the point clearly. It is not logical to terminate Crossrail at Maidenhead. Equally, it is not logical to have separate projects to build a new terminus at Maidenhead and a new station at Reading, which is desperately needed to create a better through-way for east-west and north-south rail routes. Is the Secretary of State saying to the House tonight that his Department is giving no consideration whatever to bringing those two projects together? Again, I will happily give way if he wants to tell the House that some joined-up thinking has taken place.  [Interruption.] No.

Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend think that there might be some connection here with the fact that the Secretary of State represents not one of his own Paisley and Renfrewshire, South constituents on a single transport matter, as is the case with every other Scottish MP? I should also point out that the overwhelming majority of complaints that I have received from my Mayfair residents, of whom the Secretary of State was so dismissive earlier, are in fact from people living in social housing. I will ensure that in the run-up to the next general election, they will not be allowed to forget that a Labour Cabinet Minister was so dismissive of their rights, particularly given that, unlike him, I do represent my constituents on transport issues.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. However, I hold nothing against the Secretary of State. He is doing his best and has been in the job only a few months, and he has inherited projects that have been passed to him.
	However, the Secretary of State will have to do better than simply talk about things that might happen with this project in future and possible sources of funding. He referred earlier to mixed messages, but his own Department is giving them out. He quoted the  Evening Standard earlier, so let me point out that during the summer, that newspaper ran a public statement from his Department. One of his press officers told it that the Department was not expecting services on Crossrail to start until 2019. By definition, that means that construction will not start in 2008, which is when, according to the project team, construction has to start to avoid the disbanding of existing expertiseexpertise that is needed to keep the project going for the future. So again, there is uncertainty. We are not sure about the funding or the Department's planned construction timetable, and there are some questions about the route.

Charles Walker: Is my hon. Friend not concerned that by 2008 a major infrastructure project for the Olympics will also be under way? Has any consideration been given to where the resources will come from to start Crossrail in 2008?

Chris Grayling: I should be disappointed if we were not capable of undertaking a number of major projects at once. Clearly, there is an issue in respect of the Stratford area, and it might be necessary, because of the Olympics, to build Crossrail in stages. However, there is a problem that the project team will put to those who listen if construction does not begin in 2008: if we assume that the Bill goes through, with support on both sides of the House, to create valuable powers for London next year, and if we assume that the Government do not come forward with funding immediately so that construction can begin, the project team will have to be disbanded, expertise will be lost and some of the initial work that the Government have paid for will have to be abandoned.
	The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) asked me what my party would do. The answer is that if my party comes to government in 2009 or 2010 the team will already have been disbanded if the Government have not funded the project. The Secretary of State cannot spin things out for much longer. In the next few months, the Government will have to give clear statements of intent, not simply to pass a Bill to agree powers, but to decide whether they will actually deliver and pay for the project.
	We will support the Bill, as we have done all along, in its progress to the statute book. We recognise and accept the need to increase transport capacity in London, where there is a clear benefit in enhancing rail capacity. I do not know what will happen over the next 12 to 18 months; whether the Government will fulfil their promises to the people and businesses of London, only time will tell. We will be ready, if they do not fulfil those promises, to make our own proposals in good time for the election so that people know what we will do when we are in government. They will know what to expect from us.

Martin Salter: It is touching of the hon. Gentleman to make it clear that in government he would be prepared to find the resources to fund such an incredibly expensive project. Will he remind the House how many hundreds of millions of pounds he and his party were committed to stripping out of the transport budget as a result of the James review, published at the last election? There would not have been a penny piece left for Crossrailor for anything elseif he had had his way.

Chris Grayling: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his party that announced and then scrapped the modernisation of the east coast main line, announced and then scrapped most of 25 light rail schemes, announced and has not gone ahead with either Crossrail or Thameslink and produced in its 10-year plan a list of promises that encouraged people to believe it would make a difference to transport, yet has done nothing about them. On the other hand, it was my party that brought trams to Croydon, Sheffield and Manchester, built a new tube line in London and introduced new transport schemes throughout the country. I have nothing to be ashamed of in my party's record on transport. The hon. Gentleman has everything to be ashamed of in his party's record on transport.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that during the 1990s it was his party in government that introduced a Crossrail Bill but failed dramatically to bring it through the House to fruition?

Chris Grayling: But may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was my party in government that introduced Britain's first light rail scheme in half a century, which has now been extended to his constituency

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest to the House that we have had enough reminders for the time being.

Chris Grayling: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	We support the Bill, and as the months go by, I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State whether he intends to fund Crossrail, and what he intends to do about funding it. We wish the Bill well; it will have our support in the House tonight and when it returns at the end of the Committee's work. I wish its members well in the task ahead.

Nick Raynsford: I draw attention to my registered interest as chairman of the Construction Industry Council.
	Crossrail is a scheme of huge importance to the future of our capital city and, indeed, to the UK economy as a whole. We are all familiar with the traffic and transport problems that already exist in London. As the capital's economy continues to prosper and its population continues to grow, those problems are set to get worse. If radical action is not taken to provide improved connections, particularly through central London, linking key destinations and development areas, not least in the Thames Gateway, the risk of gridlock and consequent economic decline as businesses choose to re-locateprobably abroadis very real. That will have an impact on the national economy, which is why the scheme is of importance nationally and not just for London. It is essential that the Bill should proceed through its parliamentary stages without prolonged delay. As we know, the scheme has already taken a depressingly long time even to reach this stage and further delay would be unforgivable.
	Turning to Woolwich, it is important to put the station proposal in context. When the current scheme was proposed, and two schemes were put out to consultation, a station at Woolwich was an integral part of both. There was an obvious logic for that. Woolwich is an area with a proud history but with considerable economic difficulties, which have worsened over the past 50 years. It is a garrison town, which at one stage, in the 19th and early 20th century, housed the largest armaments factory in the worldthe Royal Arsenalwhere no fewer than 80,000 people worked at its high point. By the second half of the 20th century, however, major changes in the economy, like those suffered in many towns and cities in the rest of the country, particularly in the industrial heartlands, meant that Woolwich suffered a prolonged and serious economic decline. The Royal Arsenal closedno one works for it now. The heavy industry on the waterfront closed and an area that had once been at the centre of the UK's manufacturing industry faced serious problems of unemployment and deprivation. Indices of deprivation show that the wards making up the central area of Woolwich are among the poorest and most deprived in the country.
	After decades of decline, however, there is now at last the prospect of recovery. Woolwich lies towards the western end of the Thames Gatewayone of the Government's key growth areasand there is real scope for new developments on formerly derelict industrial land. New houses are being created in the Royal Arsenal, and the town centre is beginning to attract significant new retail investment. There is still a long way to go, but there are real opportunities to transform Woolwich and to create a prosperous future.
	I am grateful to members of the Select Committee for their attention to Woolwich. When they visited the town, they saw the evidence and were convinced that the area was one not only of great need, but of great opportunity.

Mark Field: The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for Woolwich, which is in his constituency, and I entirely endorse what he says. However, given that in recent years the DLR has linked up with Woolwich, does he not feel that there will be sufficient links to the main London transport networks? I am not trying to make the Government's argument for them, but does not that make a strong case? We do not need the additional expense of linking Woolwich through the Crossrail system, too.

Nick Raynsford: No; the two lines serve completely different purposes, which can be illustrated by the travel times. The journey from Woolwich to Canary Wharf on the DLRwhen it actually comes to Woolwichwill be about half an hour, due to the route, while the time on the direct link via Crossrail would be in the region of seven or eight minutes. That difference in connection will have a huge impact on the economic development of Canary Wharf because it can draw on the large labour force in south-east London, who would have quick access. That is one of the reasons why people in Canary Wharf are so sympathetic to the proposals for the Woolwich station. The two lines serve different purposes and it is a mistake to confuse them, just as it would be a mistake to say that because Westminster has benefited from some improved transport schemes, there is no need for Crossrail to have any stations in Westminster. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not argue that case.
	A Crossrail station in Woolwich, providing links to Canary Wharf, the City, the west end and Heathrow, would have obvious benefits, accelerating the process of regeneration and facilitating much new commercial and residential investment. Estimates by the consultants EDAW suggest that there will be scope for an additional 4,300 new homes, as well as the substantial number already planned, and for more than 2,000 new jobsall of which would have a considerable impact on the regeneration of the area. Few locations along the Crossrail route would benefit to anywhere the same extent as Woolwich from the presence of a station.
	For all of us who care about the area and have been working to secure its recovery, the decision to drop the Woolwich station was an absolute body blow. Even worse was the absence of any clear logic behind that decision. Quite apart from the exceptional potential regenerative impacts, there are many other powerful arguments for the station at Woolwich. Without a Woolwich station, there would be a gap of almost six miles between Custom House and Abbey Woodone of the longest gaps on the entire network. There would be only one station in the whole of south London and that would be at Abbey Wood. That station is necessary for a connection with Southeastern trains on the surface, but Abbey Wood is not an area that is capable of providing a transport hub.
	By contrast, Woolwich is a major transport hub. It has 180 buses an hour serving the town centre. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) pointed out, it will have the docklands light railway within three years. It will have the waterfront transit. It already has a river bus service, which looks like being enhanced as a result of investment. It also has a connection with the Southeastern trains surface rail operation. Woolwich can serve the wider area of south-east London. It would provide an opportunity for the people of south-east London to make optimum use of Crossrail, which otherwise would not be possible.
	In addition to those benefits, there are of course the issues that were taken into account in the cost-benefit analysis, which already shows that Woolwich performs better than Crossrail as a whole, with a cost-benefit ratio of 3:1. That is likely to improve even further as a result of the savings to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already referred, where we believe that there is scope for even further improvement.
	With all those potential advantages, it is not surprising that the Select Committee, after hearing all the evidence, concluded that the Woolwich station offered exceptional value for money and proposed its reinsertion in the Bill. In my view, the Select Committee was acting entirely properly and within its remit in doing so. If the Government had not wanted the Select Committee to consider the Woolwich station, they could have instructed it not to do so, as they did in the case of Reading, but they did not. Indeed, they provided detailed evidence on the subject for the Committee to consider.
	In that situationI speak with the authority of someone who served on the Select Committee that discussed the Channel Tunnel Bill in the 1980s, which had even more petitions to consider than the Select Committee looking at Crossrailit is entirely proper for the Select Committee to come up with conclusions about the improvement of the Bill, and not simply to respond to individual issues of property rights. I believe that there is little justification for the argument that the Department for Transport has advanced. It is a fallacious argument. According to the evidence that I have received from the Library, the Clerks rather tend to that view, too. I am not going to get into that discussion, but I want to put on the record my belief that the Select Committee has acted entirely within its proper rights and its remit, and I wholly support it in doing so.
	As I have already indicated, the station was dropped from the scheme only for financial reasons. It seems that that is the only basis on which there has been a reluctance to accept the Select Committee's report. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, it is a question of affordability and he is rightly concerned about that. I share the concern about ensuring that the Crossrail scheme is affordable. Where I differ from him is in believing that his Department has acted in a way that has treated Woolwich quite differently from other elements in the scheme. It would be proper for it to be assessed as a contributory element to the Crossrail scheme, rather than being rejected individually on affordability grounds when similar tests have not been applied to other elements in the scheme. Although I entirely accept his concern to bear down on costs to make Crossrail affordable, I believe that that exercise should be taken in the round, with Woolwich included within all the elements that are considered.
	In the London borough of Greenwich, we are certainly concerned to bear down on the costs. We have made suggestions about how economies can be made by reducing the construction costs and securing additional revenue to offset those costs. The leader of our council, Councillor Chris Roberts, has written to my right hon. Friend to make it clear that Greenwich council wants to work constructively with the Government, Crossrail and other interested parties to explore how the Woolwich station can be delivered in the most cost-effective way.
	There are real opportunities. The original scheme involved a deep underground station, with associated high costs. That was because, at that stage, the line was thought to be likely to carry freight and there was therefore a gradient constraint. The line had to remain underground to pass underneath not just the Thames, but Sir Joseph Bazalgette's great southern outfall sewer works further to the east. It was kept at a relatively low level between those two obstacles. Now that no freight usage is envisaged, the permitted gradients can be steeper than previously envisaged. That in turn reduces the depth at which the station has to be built, which allows savings to be made. There is definite scope for savings through value engineering and exploring the detailed arrangements of the scheme.
	Equally, the substantial development opportunities around Woolwich, to which I have already alluded, offer real scope for securing some offsetting contributions towards the costs. I am absolutely confident that the discussions that my right hon. Friend has opened the door to with his comments earlier this evening will demonstrate that it is possible to deliver a value-for-money station at Woolwich for a cost that is significantly less than the cost that has been quoted. We have certainly seen a significant reduction from the 300 million-plus figure that was originally quoted by the Government. When rejecting the Select Committee's decision to insert Woolwich in the Bill, the figure of 200 million was quoted. Tonight we are at 186 million. I suspect that the figure will be lower than that after this exercise. I am keen that it should be. It is right that we should look for value for money, but we should not arbitrarily reject a station that would bring enormous benefits to a deprived area and that would help regeneration and the economy of south-east London.

Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend will know that I supported his early-day motion and that there is a powerful case. What he is saying is extremely strong. However, does he accept that we need Crossrail with or without Woolwich and that the Bill cannot be held hostage to this issue? It is crucial that we make progress so that Crossrail is a reality as soon as possible.

Nick Raynsford: As my hon. Friend will know, I made it absolutely clear at the outset of my speech that I wholly support making progress with Crossrail. I am a great supporter of Crossrail. I believe that the inclusion of the Woolwich station will improve the scheme and provide better value for money and I am arguing for it on that basis. I am not holding the Crossrail scheme to ransom in any way and I certainly would not want that impression to be carried by any hon. Member.
	In the light of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the start of this debate confirming his willingness for work to be undertaken to explore further the implications, the costs and the benefits of the Woolwich station, I do not propose to pursue my amendment. We now have the option to examine the Woolwich station in greater detail, which is what my amendment was intended to facilitate. As the Secretary of State has agreed, that will allow the Select Committee an opportunity to revisit the issue before it completes its work. Given the strong case that has already been made and that the Select Committee has recognised, I am confident that when it comes to do so it will not wish to vary its previous view, but it will certainly benefit from the additional work to explore the economics of the Woolwich station to see whether the cost can be further reduced, as I am optimistic that it can be.
	In not pursuing my amendment, I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the contributions towards securing this outcome that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and all his fellow members of the Select Committee, who have listened with great care and diligence to the case that we have made on behalf of Woolwich. I would also like to thank the 49 hon. Members who signed early-day motion 2835 on this subject and who maintained their support, despite certain pressures to withdraw.
	On that note, may I add my concern that some people have tried to present my campaign for Woolwich, and that of my hon. Friends, as a campaign for more money for London? I am not making a case for more money for London; it is case for social justice and for getting the maximum benefit from the Crossrail scheme in the interests of the country as a whole and some of the most deprived areas within the country.
	In conclusion, if anyone wishes to suggest that tonight's exercise is simply a delaying mechanism that means that the Woolwich station will be kicked into the long grass, I can inform them that we have built up in Woolwich a strong head of steam that is backed by all sections of the communitythe business community, residents, people in the surrounding area, the local authority and local MPs. The campaign is vital and vibrant and it will not go away. I can thus disabuse anyone of the idea that this is simply an exercise of kicking Woolwich into the long grass. We will be watching the progress of the discussions in the coming months very closely indeed. We will be ready to revisit the matter when it comes back to the Select Committee, which has already shown its real commitment to the cause.

Alistair Carmichael: The Liberal Democrats do not oppose the motions and we certainly will not divide the House tonight. As others have done, I commend the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), for undertaking a highly significant task, albeit, in many ways, an arduous one. It was apparent from my oversight of the Committee's deliberations that it has carried out its task with commendable diligence.
	Much of our debate has been focused on financial implications, especially those of a station at Woolwich. It is entirely proper and understandable that that should be the case. However, in the light of yesterday's statement in the Chamber on the Stern report, it is worth putting on the record the fact that a project such as Crossrail has other implications that should not be underestimated. Locating public transport infrastructure with such capacity in the capital city will bring about the significant benefits of reducing congestion and environmental improvement. Surely we should give rebalanced weight to such matters when we consider projects of this nature.
	I would find it difficult to disagree with much of what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) said about the case for a station at Woolwich. The Committee's special report refers to the station as being exceptional value for money. It says that it is amazedthat is strong language for such a report
	that, having set the case before the Committee in this quasi-judicial proceeding, the Secretary of State feels unable to accept the considered view of this Committee.
	It is apparent to me that the Committee feels somewhat aggrieved by its treatment at the Government's hand, and it is quite entitled to do so.
	Without the inclusion of Woolwich station, the whole case for Crossrail is undermined in many ways. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made it clear that without a station at Woolwich, there will be no stop on the six-mile stretch between Custom House and Abbey Wood. Given the importance of Greenwich as a transport hub, especially in relation to the Thames Gateway, the situation must be revisited, so I hope that the Select Committee will stick to its guns when it produces its final report to the House.
	As has been pointed out, the initial Government estimates on the Woolwich station project suggested that it would cost something in the region of 300 million. The Government have accepted tonight that the cost could be as low as 186 million. When estimates shift by such a magnitude, it is difficult to know how we can have any confidence in the Government's view on the matter at all. The Government have said repeatedly that we have Crossrail without Woolwich, or nothing at all. That is an unworthy position for the Government to take. They should tackle the arguments head-on in a more straightforward, transparent and honest way, and engage in a proper debate in a way in which I have not seen so far today.

Alan Meale: I pay tribute to the offer that has been made by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris). Both of them have worked extremely diligently and honestly to try to find a brokered solution that will be acceptable to all. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who speaks for Her Majesty's Opposition. The Committee will have heard his kind remarks, as well as those made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford).
	First, I wish to deal with the offer that has been made. The Committee has already had the chance to talk about it and we accept it willingly. The offer is thoroughly genuine and gives us the opportunity to take the situation forward.
	For the record, I add my thanks to the members of the Committee of all political persuasions. They have worked very hard on an extremely complex Bill and the process has been tortuous for them. The Committee has sat on scores of occasions over many months, so it has been difficult for its members to keep their attention on their duties as Members of Parliament and to stick with the endeavours that they have taken on as honourable brokers and representatives of the Committee.

Douglas Alexander: Amid the welter of interventions that I took, I fear that I inadvertently failed to echo the sentiments towards the Committee and the efforts of its Chairman. May I take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude to the work of the Committee and my hon. Friend?

Alan Meale: I am grateful to the Secretary of State.
	The Committee has sat not only while the House of Commons has been sitting, but outside those times. On one occasion, we actually worked during a recess. I thus pay tribute to the Committee's members, who have been thorough and honest brokers for the work that they have been given.
	During the Committee's evidence sessions, we have heard from a plethora of sources, including hundreds of petitioners from a wide variety of organisations. Weighty corporations, businesses, charities, community groups, and individual tenants and homeowners have taken the opportunity to make their views and concerns known to the Committee. I have no doubt that some are quite cynical about this whole operation; indeed, there have been indications of that view this evening. We on the Committee, as a united force, do not agree with that. We are all committed to the work that we have undertaken. We believe that this Bill can be genuinely good for Britain, not only for London.
	We should not underestimate the contribution that has been made by Members, who have not only sat in Committee but bothered to go out and visit many of the sites concerned. Not for them the leafy suburbs of Buenos Aires or the sunny beaches of Antigua; their destinations were Tottenham Court road, Paddington station, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel and, inevitably, Woolwich. One can get sunny days in those places, but it certainly was not sunny when we made our visits.
	I turn now to the Committee's powers, a matter that has been raised by the Secretary of State and will no doubt be mentioned by other Members during the debate. For the record, the Crossrail Bill Committee is, as the Secretary of State pointed out, quasi-judicial. Like a court, it has cases put to it. It acts as a judge, taking a view on the evidence and opinions put before it and then reporting to the House. When the House sets out the role of such a Committee, it can, and usually does, use its powers to say what the Committee should and should not cover. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is quite right to say that if the Government did not want Woolwich to be discussed, they could have taken the opportunity to exclude it when the powers were laid down. The fact that they did not left us no option but to examine the case being put forward, which was a valid petition. That we did with great endeavour. As the Opposition spokesman pointed out, the Secretary of State has been handed the short bat, facing problems that began under those who preceded him in his role. The problem is that we had little option but to listen to the soundings and report our opinions. The Committee is nevertheless extremely grateful to the Secretary of State, and we accept without reservation the offers that he has made, which we believe to be genuine. However, I have to report to the House that we, as a Committee, want to reiterate our view that a Crossrail station should be built at Woolwich. That is not a whim; it is the result of careful and lengthy consideration.
	The Committee heard three days of evidence on the matter from the London borough of Greenwich and, of course, from the Government's own promoters, Crossrail. This was not simply a question of who performed well; the Committee took the time to visit the area, see the site and talk to the representatives of both the local authority and Crossrail. We have also read the  Hansard reports of previous debates on this matter, and I have no doubt that other Members will refer to them. Last but not least, we listened to the arguments of the Government's counsel. Greenwich made an excellent, compelling case.
	The Committee was initially informed that a station at Woolwich would, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, cost about 306 million. That was later revised to less than 200 million. The original Crossrail scheme had a station at Woolwich, but it was mysteriously deleted just before the Bill reappeared in this place. The economic development opportunity has been much talked about by members of the Committee. We believe that it would offer one of the poorest areas of London an opportunity to redevelop which would greatly benefit the people who live there. That is especially true of the Woolwich arsenal site, which is badly contaminated.

Charles Walker: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the total cost of Crossrail has been estimated at 16 billion, adding another station at 200 million does not seem like a deal breaker; it seems like an eminently sensible way of maximising the value of the project?

Alan Meale: As I said, the Committee has already accepted the Secretary of State's offer on that. The figures given to the Committee range from 10 billion to 16 billion, and we are not sure what the actual cost would be. The Committee agrees that the issue of Woolwich needs to be considered, and we are grateful to the Secretary of State for his offer to beef up the economic case and bring it back to the Committee so that we can consider it and give our opinion.
	The other factor that made the case even more compelling was the probability of huge growth in the Woolwich area. The Government's own figures show that by 2031 there will be more than 100,000 people living within a 20-minute journey of where the station would be. That is phenomenal growth. Having spoken to the London borough of Greenwich, we know that it has given planning permission for up to 15,000 properties to be built in the next five years. That growth can be met only if a Crossrail station is built there. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, 180 buses an hour already serve the centre of Woolwich. If the transport infrastructure network is to be integrated and co-ordinated, Crossrail is vital.
	The Committee has met for months. We have had scores of sittings. We have debated the matter time and again. We have visited the sites in question. We have all worked hard, and we represent various political persuasions in the House. Every vote that we have had on the Bill has been unanimous. That is extremely rare. I repeat that we are grateful to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for the work that they have put in and the new opportunity that has been offered. We will work diligently until we can complete the task and present a full Bill to the House.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has a reputation in the House as a courteous and modest man. I want to spare his blushes, but I should like to pay tribute to him. The Committee saw quite a number of petitioners from Shenfield and I had the opportunity to speak to several of them and to sit in on some meetings. The one theme that emerged was that Members seemed genuinely interested in what they said, and they were treated with enormous courtesy. On behalf of my electors, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that courtesy.

Alan Meale: It was remiss of me not to mention that a number of Members of Parliament came forward to help their constituents in the tortuous process of appearing before a Select Committee, staying with them during the process and advising them before and afterwards. We were extremely grateful for their work in that respect.

Eric Pickles: Now it is my turn to feel embarrassed

Michael Penning: Not for long.

Eric Pickles: Indeed. I shall deal briefly with one or two matters, starting with the report by Sir Michael Lyons. Since the Second Reading debate, we have been told that his report on the future of local government was awaited and would be taken into consideration in deciding the future of Crossrail.
	Not long after that undertaking was given, a number of us had an opportunity to have a discussion with Sir Michael in a Committee upstairs. I asked him a gentle question, which was meant as an ice-breaker. It was not meant to elicit any particular information. I asked how he was going about forming his views on Crossrail. He replied that that was an interesting question. He said that he was bemused by the references to Crossrail, which he had read about in a newspaper, and that he had not been approached by the Government or given any terms of reference with regard to Crossrail and did not intend to deal with it.
	That was an extraordinary response, given that we were speaking about the single most important infrastructure project that any of us are likely to see in our career in Parliament, and it has been left to a chap who does not intend to say much about it. Because of the way in which local government finance operates and because Sir Michael Lyons is a reasonable and obliging man, I suspect that in the end he may have something to say about major infrastructure projects, but even if he does, nothing will quite fit the enormity of Crossrail. There may well be schemes concerning roads, old persons' homes or other infrastructure questions, but the question of how they are financed is nothing by comparison with the billions of pounds that must be raised. We need an explanation of why we are waiting. Sir Michael Lyons, eminent though he is, will not add an awful lot to what we know must come.
	Ultimately, the issue concerns who pays. How big will the Treasury contribution be? Will a substantial sum of money from the public purse be put aside in the next financial round? And what contribution will come from the London taxpayer and, in particular, from the London business rate? Ministers have said that it is only reasonable that those who will benefit from Crossrail should contribute, but if the business rate is to remain capped and linked to inflation, it will not pay for Crossrail. If one third or one half of the funds are needed, there will be savage increases in local taxation in London close to the time when Londoners will be shelling out for the Olympics.

Justine Greening: Does my hon. Friend agree that the uncertainty about Crossrail funding is particularly bad for London businesses? For example, businesses in my constituency, Putney, will undoubtedly fork out more in business rates, but they are south of the river and will not get an awful lot back in return.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend has made a good local point. The good people of London will be expected to pay an awful lot for a major piece of infrastructure. We know that the MayorI am not making a particular comment about the Mayor of Londonhas suggested including a combination of business rates and Government money, with the rest being funded by way of bonds financed in the City, I suppose. The Committee would like to know about that matter.
	The Committee is likely to finish its deliberations and produce a report in about February. Sir Michael Lyons is due to give his report to the Government in December, but there is no commitment to publish that report immediately. That report could come out in February, March or, perhaps, after the next local elections.
	I am warming to the new Minister with responsibility for Crossrail, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), who has been refreshingly honest and straightforward about what is necessary. I pointed out to him that we know that the Olympics will take place and have a rough idea of the funding mechanism, and then asked him why we cannot know about Crossrail. He made the right and proper distinction that the Olympics are going ahead, whereas we have not made a commitment on Crossrail. He went on to sayI commend him for saying this, because it is absolutely rightthat there must be a robust case for Crossrail. I am not convinced that without quite heavy taxationperhaps almost penal levels of taxationin London, we will be able to pay for Crossrail. If other hon. Members were to assure me that more money can be raised voluntarily from the private sector through bonds or other instruments, it would go some way to relieving my concerns. I want to return to the question of what is robust. When the Government put together a scheme, one naturally assumes that it will be rigorously enforced and the best deal possible, so why add the word robust?
	There has been an attempt to dampen expectations about Woolwich. The Minister has said:
	Crossrail without Woolwich or no Crossrailthis is the choice that might be open to the government.
	Now we have got the sum of money down to a little under 200 million, or about 1 per cent. As the late Ronald Reagan said, A million here, a million there, and you're soon talking about serious money. Is the margin on Crossrail really so great that 1 per cent. could tip it from having not a robust case but a financial case of some kind or another?
	I am reluctant to tread on the toes of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), but to somebody who knows the area reasonably well, it is screamingly obvious that it makes sense to have a hub there, given what the Government want to achieve strategically with regard to the Thames corridor, and given that the light railway is going across to Woolwich. A proper integrated transport strategy must be based on setting up strategic hubs. In relation to south London, where more obvious place to do so than in Woolwich? If the Minister is really scraping around for the odd 200 million or so, I would happily put up Shenfield station to be sacrificed for Woolwich, because the good folk of Shenfield will derive practically nothing from Crossrail; indeed, it will make their journey into work more difficult. At this late moment, and in the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, I offer the Minister that opportunity.

Mike Gapes: I am glad that you called me at this moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it enables me to respond directly to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who is clearly trying to sabotage the line that runs from Liverpool Street through Ilford. The Crossrail project involves people being able to travel from Essex into and across London more quickly. It will not only lead to a regeneration effect on areas such as Woolwich in the centre but create great potential for London's continuation as a global city, thereby attracting people to this city from all over the world. It will link together Heathrow, the west end, Canary Wharf and areas out to the east, including the line from Liverpool Street through my constituency and on to Shenfield.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am delighted that the line is going to Ilford, but I have a problem with the bit that goes to Shenfield.

Mike Gapes: I hope that when this process is finally concluded we will all be satisfied in our aspirations. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is almost total unanimity in Ilford and Redbridge, among my constituents and in the council, in strongly supporting Crossrail.

Lee Scott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Crossrail going to his constituency will also benefit my constituency, and that without Crossrail the regeneration agenda of the London borough of Redbridge could be put in severe jeopardy?

Mike Gapes: That is absolutely right. The council has a scheme called Progressive Ilford, which is a 30-year plan for regeneration, jobs, transport links, shopping, and affordable and good quality housing in the centre of Ilford. That will very much depend on improved transport links, the reconfiguration of Ilford station, and bringing buses into that new station, as is already the case at Stratford station. That will be vital for the regeneration of Ilford town centre. As for financing, many of the shops and other businesses will thrive as a result.
	One of the interesting projections relating to the impact of Crossrail in London is that, over 60 years, it will add an estimated 30 billion to UK gross domestic product, half of which will be in London and half elsewhere in the country. According to London First, that successful regeneration and additional business will result in 12 billion in tax revenues. That is a win-win situationearlier, someone used the phrase no-brainer. That applies to the benefits of Crossrail for my constituents and for others, and to the future of London as a global city.
	My constituency will also have extended platform lengths at three stations. We will have the freight loop. We will have a lot of engineering work. We will now have a cleaning facility, as a result of the decision to get rid of Romford [Interruption.] I am just talking about the Crossrail connection; I am not saying that we should get rid of Romford.

Nick Raynsford: Why not?

Mike Gapes: I am not going to get into that.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to Romford. My constituents are delighted that the proposed depot, which was going to cost 400 million, is being ditched. Even though that was the right decision, does not it highlight the amount of money wasted on preparatory work?

Mike Gapes: I think that it shows that the new Crossrail project management team, under Doug Oakervee and others, has done a good job in paring down costs and considering where savings can be made. At last, after all the years of false hopes and dreams, the Government are making positive remarks about Crossrail. The hon. Gentleman may not recall this, but when I was first elected in 1992, the then Transport Minister, Mr. Steven Norris, was talking about Crossrail. After 14 years, and so many Transport Ministers that I cannot remember all of them, let alone list them, at last we seem to be on the edge of something important. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and his Committee, who have done a fantastic job. It is vital that the House continues to make progress in the next Session.
	The scheme has cross-party support in this House, and I hope that it will have cross-party support in the other place. I hope that those on the Opposition Front Benches will give it more explicit support, and that the Government will support the project through the important phase of the comprehensive spending review next year and give it the funding that we need. Whatever the formulawhether the Mayor of London's formula or some variationwe need a decision on the funding of the project as soon as possible. We will need the support of Members from all parties to make sure that the project is delivered and that, at last, Crossrail can benefit London and the UK as a whole.

Brian Binley: I thank the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) who spoke kindly about the Committee. His good wishes are well received, as it has been a long trial.
	It has been a privilege to serve on the Committee. When I was appointed to it, I did not think that it would be a privilege. Rumours abounded that the Whips were using it to hide away those rebels whom they needed to chastise and bring to some form of order. I cannot believe that that would have been the case. We have been a happy Committee, which is in many respects due to the work of our Chairman, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). On behalf of the members of the Committee, I pay tribute to his chairmanship. The Committee took its responsibilities seriously, and it dealt with many petitions that sought to protect the interests of people who cannot speak for themselves and who are often not heard. We listened to those people, and I am proud to have served on a Committee that made decisions not on the basis of emotion, but to enhance the interests of such people. That is one of the ways in which the Committee carried out its duties to serve the people of London.
	A number of petitions dealt with the issue of building a station at Woolwich. Indeed, we have heard contributions from several Members who are much more knowledgeable about the area than I am. I pay particular tribute to both the fervour and the content of the presentation by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). The subject is a connecting bridge between us, as is the fact that he is a Northampton boy. It is a particular pleasure to see him operate with so much efficiency in the House, and I wish his cause well, as does the Committee.
	The Committee was told that, in 2004, Woolwich was the 41st most deprived borough in the country; parts of Woolwich were among the 10 per cent. most deprived areas of the country. The area lies at the heart of the Thames Gateway, but right hon. and hon. Members may not know that, under the Bill, the route of Crossrail is set to pass by Woolwich. If our proposals are not accepted, it will be the largest town centre on the whole route not served by a station. If we add that fact to the deprivation statistics, it gives us a good reason for including Woolwich on the Crossrail route, and the case for a station at Woolwich has been made most eloquently.
	Woolwich is undergoing positive regeneration, but more regeneration is desperately needed. There is no doubt that a station would boost employment. We have already heard the figures: 2,500 jobs would be directly related to Crossrail. It would attract families to the area, and we heard the figures relating to the housing development that is already planned. Some 4,500 of the 19,000 houses that are to be built will be directly linked to Crossrail. A station would encourage investment, too. I need not tell hon. Members about the self-sustaining cycle that such investment creates in an area, and a decent rail link will enhance that enormously.
	Given all those points, the petitioners' calculated costs for the station represent exceptional value for money, but Crossrail is not just about moneyit is about the impact on the area that it serves, and its regeneration capacity. Woolwich is an ideal site on which to achieve that objective.

Andrew Rosindell: I accept everything that my hon. Friend says about the importance of the regeneration that Crossrail will bring, but does he agree that it is important to consider the impact on people's lives of issues such as the places where the tracks, depot and other facilities are to be sited? Crossrail certainly would have had a huge impact on my constituency, and it still will, in certain parts. Is it not vital that such issues are fully considered throughout our deliberations on the Bill?

Brian Binley: Crossrail's impact on Londonand the costs of the disruption that it will cause, toohave not been properly taken into account, but now is not the time to do so. I imagine that debate on those issues will flow later, on Report and Third Reading.
	I return to the point about the cost of the station at Woolwich. We were told that the cost was prohibitive, at 350 million. Indeed, we were told that that was too much. Nevertheless, at that stage we felt that the benefits a station would bring to Woolwich far outweighed those costs, and we produced an interim report announcing some of the provisional decisions, including the addition of a new station at Woolwich. We were surprisedI think that that is a good enough wordwhen the promoters came back and said that they would not accept our proposal. Surprised? No, we were amazed, because we felt it was not the responsibility of the promoters to come back to us at that time.
	It is interesting to note what the promoters said in their response to us. They said:
	The Promoter recognises that a strong case has been made for a station at Woolwich. In the light of the Committee's decision, the Promoter has looked over the summer at the design of the station to explore ways of reducing its very high cost.
	Indeed, they came up with a new cost of 200 million. I must say that those sort of figures in this sort of exercise suggest, to a business man, that we have not seen the sort of thinking that we would usually expect, particularly when a project of such importance is ruled out on the basis of cost. It simply is not good enough to say 350 million one minute and then the next minute to come up with 200 million. I hear from the Minister tonight that it has now gone down to 186 million. The truth of the matter is that the costings for Woolwich station do not make any sense at all, so I am delighted that the Minister has decided to have another look at the issue.
	If we accept the 200 million figureI believe that it will come down, as it has in the pastwe note that it equates to just over 1 per cent. of the total cost of the project as it stands. Many people might argue that the overall costs of the project will rise, yet the promoters argued that affordability was a key issue and that, presumably on the basis that affordability would be threatened, they could not accept the Committee's decision. I am a business manor I was before I came to the Houseand I can say that if any project put before my board was not viable on the basis of 1 per cent. of its total overall cost, I would not even consider it. I would throw the project out, because it clearly could not wipe its own face.

Justine Greening: Speaking as an accountant, I think my hon. Friend is making a very interesting point, but does he agree that there is a danger of not fully factoring in the indirect knock-on costs? We have already mentioned the sewerage system in London, which is straining and overloaded. Quite frankly, we have a 19th-century system in a 21st-century city. Of course we need to regenerate parts of London, but does my hon. Friend agree that extra costsknock-on investmentsalso need to be factored in?

Brian Binley: Of course I accept that point. The only thing I would object to is being called an accountantbut never mind. I will forgive my hon. Friend. Yes, I accept the point, but I am saying that we do not have a genuine cost basis that we can feel confident about if 1 per cent. undermines the affordability of the project.
	In any case, the Committee rejected the promoters' objections to our recommendation and we thought that that was the end of the matter. Much to our surprise, the Minister intervened. The Committee was therefore disappointedI think that that is a fair wordthat its opinion was not reflected in the action of the Secretary of State. Indeed, he flatly refused the proposal at the time. That left us not only disappointed but confused. I echo the comments of the Select Committee Chairman, who said that he was astonished by the Secretary of State's decision to dismiss for a second time the Committee's view after many days of taking evidence. The Chairman described that as unprecedented.
	I examined our debate on Second Reading on 19 July 2005. I want to quote the words of the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling). He said that
	the House knows that the Select Committees that we set up have a fair amount of latitude... I do not think that the Government or the House can tell the Committee, 'Thou shalt not consider anything else'for example, matters relating to any one of the stations along the route. It is open to the Committee to say that a station is in the wrong place, or that there ought to be a station somewhere else... I repeat... that if someone came along and said that the stations or the termini should be different, the Select Committee may well want to consider that. It would be up to the Committee.
	He left the Committee in no doubt about its autonomy. He said of Select Committees:
	Indeed, successive Governments have got into awful trouble by being over-prescriptive.[ Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1125-6.]

Philip Hollobone: The Select Committee went to the trouble of visiting Woolwich and investigating in depth the case put by the London borough. Does my hon. Friend agree that, before the Secretary of State comes back to the Committee with his view, he and his officials should also take the trouble to visit the Woolwich site and fully apprise themselves of the position?

Brian Binley: That is a good suggestion and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich would be delighted to escort the Secretary of State around the constituency so that the latter understands fully the needs of the people whom the former represents. The case is unarguable.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee was right to describe the Secretary of State's rejection of the Committee's proposals as unprecedented. The Committee presented a positive cost-benefit analysis of the proposal. I hope that the Secretary of State acknowledges that the Committee's position was not reached quickly but after many days of deliberation, as the Chairman stated.
	I hope that the Secretary of State also acknowledges that a parliamentary principle is at stake. The House appointed a Committee to look into the matter. The then Secretary of State made it clear that we could decide whether there should be stations elsewhere. I therefore hope that the current Secretary of State will uphold that view. His comments today suggest that he will do that.
	Parliamentary democracy is a tender plant and we must all be aware of the need to protect it. Over the years, we have listened to the cries of many who feel that parliamentary democracy is being eroded and that the power of the Executive has been increased. The Secretary of State has tonight played his part in enhancing democracy by simply recognising the right of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill to make proposals and by allowing at least in-depth consideration of them. I hope that the proposals will come before the House so that it can make the decision. The House set up the Select Committee; surely the House must receive the report and make the final decision. That is my final plea to the Secretary of State.

George Howarth: I came here at the beginning of the debate with the intention of dividing the House where that was possible. Although I realise that the motions are essentially procedural, I had concerns that I felt could be addressed only by that means. However, in view of some of what has happened during the debate, I have decided not to divide the House.
	First, I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was robust and firm in his contention that both the scheme as a whole and the Woolwich station development must be affordable. I found that reassuring. Secondly, while I hesitate to give even more praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)I know what a modest chap he isI agree with all that has been said about the work of his Committee and the leadership that he has given. In deference to him, I would like the Committee to continue the work that it started. Finally, I felt that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), in the spirit of building some sort of consensus, was generous in not moving his amendment. In that context, I see no merit in forcing any Divisions.
	That does not mean, however, that my concerns have gone away. We are told that the scheme will cost between 13 billion and 16 billion, and some estimates I have read speculate that it could amount to more than 20 billion. Regardless of how the funds are raised and whatever mix of finance is eventually chosen, those are huge sums, and somewhere along the line a substantial part of the money will come from the public purse. I was intrigued by the contention of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), repeated by others, that because the sum involved was only 1 per cent. or so of the total cost of the scheme, it did not constitute a large amount of money. I can think of alternative schemesone or two of which I shall mention shortlythat could be funded substantially from that 1 per cent. I am talking about major infrastructure projects outside London.
	I have another concern. When we examine the amount of public expenditure on transport by region, we realise that London is already doing very nicely, thank you very much. According to figures from the Library, in 2005-06 expenditure per head in London was 631. In the north-west, where my constituency is, it was 278. Similar cases can be made in relation to other per capita spending headings. In London, more than twice as much is being spent as is being spent in my constituency, and the difference between London and some other regions is even greater.
	I am sorry to break up the cosy consensus that seems to have been established this evening, but we are already confronted with a London that is a transport subsidy junkie, and I should be very reluctant in future to go along with massive amounts of additional expenditure from the public purse. I accept that a capital city needs certain things that provincial cities do not, and I accept that the Olympics provided a case at one stagealthough the development will now take place after the Olympics. However, the amounts of money being spent in London far outweigh the amounts that we would expect to be spent there purely because it is a capital city.

Charles Walker: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but London is the economic engine-room of this country. If London and the east cannot get to work, the country will not work. Surely there is merit in investing in the infrastructure that generates the wealth that funds the regions.

George Howarth: I accept that what the hon. Gentleman says has an implication, and I accept that there is a price to be paid for that, but is he seriously arguing that spending in London should be more than twice as much as spending in any comparable region in England?

Charles Walker: Absolutely.

George Howarth: That only confirms my view that we are living in cloud cuckoo land with this Crossrail scheme. At an appropriate time, many hon. Members from other parts of the country will make a judgment on the scheme, and it may be not the one that the hon. Gentleman expects. As I have said, London is becoming a junkie for public expenditure on transport.
	The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that 1 per cent. was only 186 million, so it did not matter. However, the Department for Transport turned down Mersey tramline 1, which would have benefited my constituency at a total cost of 310 million, or less than 2 per cent. of the cost of this project. On that basis, the Department should have funded our project. I do not wish to emphasise that point, because I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the matter will consider how we can get that scheme moving again. However, the point is that equally important schemes all over the country will not be funded because Crossrail is likely to suck in massive amounts of public expenditure, with no appreciable benefit elsewhere in the country.
	I will not oppose the motions tonight, but a time will come when those of us who represent other areas with transport problems that are not being adequately addressed will start to ask questions about the priorities behind the scheme. When the time comes, we may well oppose it.

Bob Russell: Any transport scheme that will encourage greater public use should, in principle, be supported, but I have reservations and concerns; I seek clarification andI hopereassurance, tonight or subsequently, from the Select Committee.
	The second motion refers to
	an additional ticket hall and enhancement of the existing ticket hall at Liverpool Street Station.
	Those of us who use the line into Liverpool Street from East Anglia and Essex know that it is already exceptionally busy. That wording suggests that the promoter anticipates a massive increase in passenger usage of that station.
	Track time is already scarce for journeys into Liverpool Street. I am concerned that an increase in inner London rail traffic into the station may be achieved by using the fast line service that comes from Norwich through East Anglia, into Suffolk and North Essex, and then through Colchester, Chelmsford and Shenfield. The crowding on the existing track into Liverpool Street is already like putting a quart into a pint pot. If another pint is added, it may be at the expense of the fast line service from East Anglia.
	Members who represent constituencies across the east of England may not yet have cottoned on to the problem. If the additional inner London rail traffic is put on the current fast line, it can only be to the detriment of the fast train services. I raise my concerns on behalf of my constituents and I hope that they will be considered carefully by other hon. Members. I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, will explain how an already exceptionally busy and congested London terminus can take the additional trains that Crossrail will produce, without detrimental effect on the fast service from the east.

Clive Efford: I want to express my gratitude, and that of my constituents, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. His announcement leaves the door ajar for us to strengthen our case for a station at Woolwich. In addition, I want to pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee. They listened closely to the people who represented our case, and responded accordingly.
	However, my right hon. Friend told me earlier that the idea of a station at Woolwich was not included in the original Crossrail plans.

Douglas Alexander: To clarify the matter for my hon. Friend, I can tell him that I was referring to the original Crossrail Bill. I hope that that explains any confusion that may have arisen.

Clive Efford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but that Bill is still fairly recent in the entire history of the project. We took part in consultations about having a station at Woolwich for a very long time. The original cost of the station was put at more than 300 million. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) has explained that those plans included freight, which meant that the tunnel gradient had to be reduced. The station was to be underground, and the cost of digging it out was excessive.
	It has also been argued that the cost-benefit ratio suffers because a station at Woolwich would be situated next to the river, which means that the investment would not realise a full 360-degree benefit. There have been many such arguments, but the plan to have a station at Woolwich was removed from the Crossrail project on grounds of excessive cost compared with other stations along the line. However, we have come a long way since then: the costs have been reduced significantly, and can be reduced still further.
	I urge the Government to look again at the proposal to have a station at Woolwich. Last week the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), told us that the scheme would cost 270 million, but we are down to 186 million today. That shows that there is plenty of scope to do more.
	It has been suggested that we are looking for additional resources so that a station at Woolwich can be included in the Crossrail project, but that is not so. We want no more than that Woolwich be treated fairly compared with the other stations on the line. The removal of the plan for a station has never been explained, although it has been suggested that someone, somewhere decided that it was too expensive. We want Woolwich to receive the same treatment that other areas have been given, yet the decision amounted to extraordinarily unfair treatment for one of the most deprived communities in the country.
	How can the decision be justified? By any measure or index of poverty, Woolwich has some of the most deprived wards in Britain. That can sometimes be difficult to see in my constituency, where deprived communities stand cheek by jowl with some of the most expensive properties in the borough. Because we often measure such statistics on a ward-wide basis, such communities frequently do not show up. But I can tell the Secretary of State that I represent, in the south of the borough of Greenwich, some of the most deprived communities, and for them a Crossrail station at Woolwich is essential. As I have said, we have done a great deal of work to bring down the costs. The cost-benefit ratio for the station now stands at three to one. Most people now accept that it would benefit the scheme as a whole.
	Let me say something to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). I accept that people are concerned about funding for schemes in other parts of the country, and it might appear that London is sucking in more and more resources to fund schemes in the capital. But if we look at the contribution in terms of gross domestic product of investing in such schemes in London, and the payback for investing in them, we find a justification for funding such schemes.
	According to a report published by the Mayor of London, London has had an increase in population of about that of a city the size of Leeds, and it predicts that in the next 16 years it will grow even moreby about the population of a city of the size of Nottingham. No other region in the country is predicted to have population growth on that scale. If in a capital city like London we fail to plan ahead for infrastructure in order to meet what we need for that level of growth, we will all suffer the consequencesnot only the people in London.

George Howarth: But the converse is also true: if we do not invest in cities such as Liverpoolor conurbations such as Merseysideor in Leeds or Manchester, their economic growth potential will be stunted.

Clive Efford: I accept that point to a degree. But we should look at the overall contribution that that investment will make to GDP, and what the country gets back as a whole from that investment. That is the case that we need to make. We must all take that into consideration when we are talking about major infrastructure capital schemes in the country.
	Crossrail will provide 40 per cent. of the required growth in public transport capacity in the near future. However, I have made the following point in this House on many occasions, and I am not going to miss this opportunity to do so again. In this area of south-east London we are not served by the London underground, and we have not benefited directly from any of the major infrastructure projects of recent times, other than the inclusion of the Jubilee line station at North Greenwich. I should point out the only reason that we got a station at North Greenwich: it was not because of the foresight of any Government; it was because local people, backed by local businesses and the local authority, fought tooth and nail to make the case for a station at North Greenwich. Now, no oneabsolutely no onewould make a case against that station being included.
	We have had a similar experience with the Docklands Light Railway station at Cutty Sark. It is one of the busiest stations on that route. Again, it was not originally included. It was only through local representation that we finally got that station included.
	We are back yet again in the same situation in south-east London in respect of the Crossrail station at Woolwich. The track will pass under a major transport centre in south-east London. There will be six miles of track on which there is no station. It makes absolutely no sense to build that tunnel under a place such as Woolwich, and not drop in a station to improve the transport network in that part of London.
	We surely cannot turn our back on an area such as Woolwich when we are talking about regeneration and investing in a scheme like Crossrail. The reasons for removing Woolwich from the Crossrail scheme have never been scrutinised, and in my opinion they cannot be justified. So I urge the Minister to continue to think about the need for a station at Woolwich. The moral case for the station has been made, and it is time that we accepted that it has to be included in the Bill.

Peter Soulsby: I rise as another member of the Select Committee. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) described our task as having been arduous, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) described us as having been diligent. Actually, on many occasions it just seemed like an absolute pain. During the period since just before last Christmas, the Committee met on more than 60 occasions. On some days, it met three times, and on some occasions for as many as seven hours a day.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) referred to rumours that Members from all parts of the Chamber who were serving on that Select Committee were doing so as some form of punishment. One Committee member calculated the odds of all five Labour membersother than the Chairman, of coursehaving been recent rebels against the Government on the issue of 90-day detention. The calculation was that the odds were in the region of 4,000:1 against. The matter was taken up with the Whips, who assured us, as one would expect, that it was a mere coincidence that we had all voted in that way.

Tony Cunningham: Absolutely.

Peter Soulsby: I hear that assurance again from the Front Bench. Of course, when a Whip tells me that something is a mere coincidence, who am I to question that judgment?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing the argument against 90-day detention. Those poor MPs were stuck in a Committee Room and not told what they were charged with for 60 days, by the sound of it, before they were let out.

Peter Soulsby: I suspect that before we get to the end of our sentence, we will have served at least 90 days. It has also been suggested that we are enduring cruel and unusual punishment and that Red Cross parcels ought to be sent to us along the Committee corridor, but as yet they have not arrived.
	Although we might question how we came to be there, we have indeed served on that Committee diligently and with good humour. We have been ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who has contributed to this evening's debate, and informally but quite firmly whipped by the hon. Member for Northampton, South, who has acted as an unofficial Whip and ensured that we continued to maintain a quorum throughout those long periods of incarceration.
	We have looked at issues ranging from significant strategic ones such as the need, as was referred to earlier, for an additional ticket hall at Liverpool Street station, through to comparatively mundane ones that are nevertheless particularly important to those affected by them, such as whether a couple of metres ought to be sacrificed from the back of somebody's garden in order to accommodate the additional space needed for a Crossrail line. We have looked at those issues seriously and in a measured way, and Members representing all the parties have used their judgment and understanding of the evidence put in front of them.
	Some of the issues that the Committee has considered have been referred to this evening, such as whether the terminus should be at Maidenhead or Reading, matters affecting Shenfield, and Liverpool Street station, which I and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned earlier. Of course, the majority of those issues we will return to only in our final report to the House. However, we did report specifically on the question of whether there should be a station at Woolwichan issue that we first came to on days 29, 30 and 31 of our deliberations, which seems quite a long time ago. We considered whether the instructions given to us by the House would enable us to examine that issue, and in doing so we were aware that a case was being made for potential additional Government expenditure on such a provision.
	We were aware, however, that our instructions did not specifically prohibit us from looking at that issue. Indeed, during the three days when we heard the evidence for and against a station at Woolwich, we were particularly aware that at no stage did the promoters, acting on behalf of the Government, challenge the Committee's right to hear that evidence or the right of petitioners to petition us on the matter. It was thus with considerable surprise and regret that we found that the Government hadat least initiallyput on one side our clear recommendation for a station at Woolwich.
	In our deliberations on that and other issues, we were very much mindful of the Government's position as promoters and that as there might be costs associated with anything we suggested for inclusion in the Bill, they would inevitably have to decide whether those costs were manageable. However, with regard to Woolwich the facts were clear. First, it was clear that what could be built at Woolwich was considerably cheaper than the original estimates. Secondly, the cost-benefit ratios for a station at Woolwich were incredibly better than those originally suggested. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out, the figure was 3:1 on the original costings, never mind the reduced costings, which will considerably improve that ratio. We were also aware that the cost-benefit ratio for providing a station was considerably better than some of the other elements of the original Crossrail scheme.
	I think that many of us privately feel that if something has to be sacrificed it ought not to be something with such an incredibly positive cost-benefit ratio as that station. Furthermore, it was clear from the evidence, and brought home to us when we made our visit to Woolwich, that the station's potential contribution to the regeneration of the area is enormous and will be much welcomed there. The DLR station at Woolwich will serve a very different need from a possible Crossrail station and, welcome as that is, it in no way undermines the strong case for a Crossrail station.
	Of course, 180 millionif that is the costis a substantial sum, but as other Members have pointed out, it needs to be seen in the context of the overall costs of the scheme. It is a lot of money, but compared with the positive cost-benefit ratio for that element of Crossrail and the comparatively poor cost-benefit ratios for other elements of the scheme, it should be afforded.
	All members of the Committee were pleased and relieved to hear that the Government intend to look further at the proposal and will enable further exploration of the costs of building a station at Woolwich. Notwithstanding the inevitable views of Members from other parts of the country, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), from whom we heard this evening, about schemes in their areas, all members of the Select Committee are of the opinion that the Crossrail scheme is enormously exciting. It is clearly vital for the future well-being of London and it is overwhelmingly clear that it can achieve its full potential only if there is a station at Woolwich.
	I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee when I again pay tribute to the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield during our deliberations, when an excellent feeling developed between those of us incarcerated on the Committee Corridor. Like other members of the Committee, I look forward to returning to the House with our final report, which will, we hope, be in the not-too-distant futurewith the Woolwich station included.

Charles Walker: I intend to speak for only a few minutes. First, may I say to the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) that I would make just as vigorous a defence of the interests of my constituents as he did of his? However, representing a constituency in the east of England, which is very much in the compass of what we are talking about today, I am concerned, like many people in the Chamber, that over the next 20 to 25 years London and the east and south-east are expected to attract an additional 5 million or 6 million people, who will come to that part of the world looking for jobs and homes. Like many people in the House, I am also aware that London and the east are the engine room of the UK economy. If we have a successful London and a successful east of England, that generates a large amount of wealth that can be distributed around the countryup to the north-west, for example.
	For those reasons, it is important that we have a transport infrastructure that can effectively get people in London to their jobs so that they can earn incomes and revenue that can be taxed and then fund other parts of the nation. If we do not have a transport system in this part of the world that is fit for the 21st century, there is every chance that much of the investment that comes to this countryto Londoncould be lost to other capital cities. That would be to the detriment of us all, regardless of where our constituencies are.

Stephen Hammond: London, as we know, is the global city. It is the Olympic-winning city of 2012. It is competing in the global world marketplace and therefore it needs the highest quality of infrastructure. Let me state at the outset my party's position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) did. It is clear that the Opposition have backed the concept of Crossrail. We will back the Bill through its parliamentary processes.
	We have had an interesting debate. We started with some fascinating interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who highlighted useful points about the funding of Crossrail and questioned the view that the Minister had stated a few minutes earlier that Crossrail's viability might be threatened if Woolwich were included. We were then treated to a powerful case from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) about the Woolwich station. He made the point that it was described as exceptional value for money and asked how something that cost under 190 million could affect a scheme that was going to cost 16 billion at output prices. The Opposition look forward to the Committee coming back and rehearing the case for Woolwich.
	The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), the joint Chairman of the Select Committee, proved to us that his Committee has been working diligently not only inside the House but outside it, as was indicated by his recitation of the Monopoly board of where the Committee has been. Like so many other Members, I congratulate the Committee on the work that it has done. It is a truly splendid effort. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised some important points about whether Sir Michael Lyons believes that he has any role or purpose in relation to Crossrail. My hon. Friend reached the conclusion that Sir Michael does not think that he has any purpose with this Bill, and therefore the references to Lyons by the Government may be purely delaying tactics. That conclusion was probably inescapable for the whole House.
	We had some interesting and, as usual, well-informed points from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) reviewed the activities of the Committee, especially with regard to Woolwich, with his customary style and elegance, and brought his business knowledge to the proceedings. I noted the comments from the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), which reiterated the case for Woolwich and highlighted the cost-benefit ratio. I understand that prior to coming to the House he may have been a cabbie in London and I imagine that many of his passengers would have listened to his dissertations with interest.
	The motions before us tonight are essentially non-controversial. The first is a motion to carry-over Crossrail to the next Session of Parliament. This Bill is proving the parliamentary convention that hybrid Bills often need more consideration than can be delivered in one Session. As we have already heard, the Select Committee is carrying out the necessary scrutiny with diligence, skill and steadfastness. It would be only right for hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the carry-over motion that will allow the Committee to continue its work in the next Session.
	The second motion gives further instructions to the Select Committee. It will allow the Committee to consider the merits and disadvantages of several matters identified by the Secretary of State. The instruction is effectively made up of two groups of provisions. The first is a group of engineering changes and alterations, which the explanatory memorandum helpfully describe as being introduced
	where a better engineering solution has now been found.
	The second list is made up of specific examples of project specifications that the Secretary of State intends to change to accommodate the legitimate concerns expressed by petitioners. Both motions are essentially non-controversial, so the Conservative party will support them. The motions will allow the Select Committee to continue its work and the Crossrail project to proceed.
	The Government could well be accused of dithering while time passes. Even given the difficult nature of the hybrid Bill procedure, there is no reason why the Bill could not complete its parliamentary passage by the summer recess, or at least the end of the next Session. The Government must ensure that the Bill is committed to a Standing Committeeunless they intend to commit it to a Committee of the whole Houseas soon as the Select Committee finishes its work. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that will happen and that he will give the House more detail about the likely time scale.
	Conservative Members remain worried about the lack of detail about the impact of Crossrail on freight movement across London. With some negotiation with the Mayor, it would be possible for both Crossrail and the need to increase freight movement to be accommodated. I look forward to hearing the Minister's plans on that.
	As I said in my speech when we debated motions on Crossrail in January, I am worried that the Government remain opaque and silent on the funding of the project. The Secretary of State said earlierit seems like quite a long time ago nowthat only the Government could reach decisions about affordability. If that is true, the Secretary of State must accept that only the Government can sign off the funding. He must give a commitment that as soon as the Lyons review reports, whether or not it reaches any conclusions on Crossrailas we have heard, Lyons might well be the Government's last fig leaf on the delay in outlining their intentionsthe Government will elucidate to the House the total cost of the scheme and its phasing. At that time they must decide once and for all their intentions on the balance of funding among business, those communities that will be direct beneficiaries of the scheme and the national benefit. We look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that. This is a matter of pressing urgency, so I am sure that the Minister will not only wish to tell us when the Secretary of State will come to the House, but confirm that we will get the final funding plans from the Government at that stage.
	The motions are essentially non-controversial. The official Opposition have backed the concept of Crossrail. We remain committed to backing the Bill through its parliamentary stages and we will support the motions tonight.

Tom Harris: I will not detain the House longer than necessary. This has been an excellent and informed debate. It has also been a very good-humoured debate, aside from the response of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to some interventions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	Despite some disagreements among right hon. and hon. Members on a number of issues, we should not overlook the fact that support for the Crossrail project remains strong and spans the House. That support was reflected the last time that the matter was debated on 12 January, when the motion containing instructions to the Select Committee was carried by 390 votes to nil. It is vital for a project as significant to London and the United Kingdom as Crossrail is that we maintain that consensus.
	In response to the questions of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), I can confirm that the Government intend to refer the Bill to Standing Committee as soon as the Select Committee has concluded its work. Discussions with the rail industry as regards freight continue, but I can offer no more specific details on that at the moment.
	I shall now respond briefly to the points made in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) referred to Ebbsfleet in an intervention on the Secretary of State. My understanding is that Ebbsfleet was part of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill at its introduction to the House, and was not added to the Bill by the Select Committee. My right hon. Friend is a long-time supporter of Crossrail. He is a diligent constituency Member and has led an extremely effective and persuasive campaign for a Crossrail station at Woolwich. I will not add to the comments made by the Secretary of State, who has made specific commitments regarding the Woolwich station, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for the campaign that he has led.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) made a very effective contribution. I take this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to the Committee that he chairs for the work that it has done. Its members have approached a demanding but essential task with a high level of commitment and the House is grateful to them, not least for forgoing the attractions of Antigua for the charms of Woolwich.
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred at length to the Lyons report and I am happy to repeat comments about Lyons that he knows I made as guest speaker at the all-party parliamentary group on Crossrail. I reiterate that we do not expect Sir Michael to make any specific proposals regarding the funding of Crossrail. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that if his icebreaker at parties is asking people to explain why Ministers constantly refer to the Lyons review of local government finance, I would love to know what his opening chat-up line to his wife was.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is necessary for the Government to consider what might be a fairly major structural change to local government finance before they can consider the shape of any future funding package for Crossrail. That is only reasonable if at least some of the funding is to be provided through business rates. Importantly, the final funding decision can be taken only in the context of the comprehensive spending review next summer. The House will agree that to have proceeded with a funding package before Lyons would have left us open to the charge that we were doing so without a clear view of the future of local government finance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who is chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Crossrail, is, I am glad to say, an enthusiastic supporter of Crossrail. I am grateful for his support tonight and for his comments, which truly informed our debate.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), the first member of the Select Committee to speak tonight, reiterated the support for Woolwich. He talked of the impact on local people's lives. That is important because the point of the Select Committee in the hybrid Bill process is to consider the impact on private interests, including those of individuals along the route of a project such as Crossrail and to offer remedies to mitigate the effect. The Committee has made an excellent job of that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) made the first break in the cross-party consensus, expressing his concerns about the cost of Crossrail. I will not be drawn into arguments about the funding of Woolwich, for reasons that I have already given, but his points about public transport spending in his constituency are well made, and I am sure that they were listened to by the whole House.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned his concerns about Liverpool Street station. There are two issues. The first, which is referred to in the additional provisions before us, involves the ticketing and passenger facilities. I can reassure him that the new facilities will be completely separate from existing provisions. He was also concerned about the possibility of Crossrail services using the lines that might be reserved for intercity trains. I reiterate, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that Crossrail services, as essentially commuter services, will not use the fast lines about which the hon. Gentleman is worried, but will use the slow lines.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) devoted most of his contribution, understandably, to making the case for Woolwich. He also made a robust case for investment in Crossrail as a whole. The second member of the Select Committee to contribute tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), gave us a valuable insight into the selection process for membership of the Select Committee. I was not involved at any stage in offering the black spot to any of my colleagues in the House. My hon. Friend and his fellow members took their duties extremely seriously. I reiterate that the Government make no criticism at all of the way in which the Committee has interpreted its remit during the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) in a short contribution made a welcome argument for general investment in Crossrail and in the capital city as the engine house of the nation.
	Crossrail will benefit London, the south-east and the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government want to see Crossrail delivered, which is why we are working to drive down the cost of the project to make sure that it is affordable. The whole House will support that. That is why we want to maintain the momentum of the Bill. Let us not lose sight of the big picture. Crossrail will add an estimated 19 billion per year to the United Kingdom's gross domestic product. In the next 20 years, 30,000 new jobs will be created in the capital, in addition to the 80,000 jobs that will be attracted to the regeneration areas along the route of Crossrail.
	The motions before the House will allow the Select Committee to conclude its business and allow the Bill to proceed to the next stage. That is surely the most important thingthat an affordable, viable Crossrail scheme should proceed towards implementation. I commend the motions to the House.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That further proceedings on the Crossrail Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends until the next Session of Parliament;
	That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Crossrail Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session
	(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
	(b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session;
	(c) the Instruction of the House to the Committee [19 July 2005] shall be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
	(d) all Petitions presented in this Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
	(e) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in this Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
	(f) only those Petitions mentioned in paragraph (d) above, and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
	(g) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;
	(h) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence taken before it;
	(i) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;
	(j) any person registered in this Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practice as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session;
	(k) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 2004-05, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

CROSSRAIL BILL [INSTRUCTION] (No. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [26 October],
	That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed in the next Session
	(1) that it have power to consider
	(a) provision in connection with the reinstatement of facilities whose operation or use is discontinued because of the exercise of power 5 conferred by the Bill;
	(b) provision in connection with agreements relating to temporary possession and use of land subject to compulsory acquisition;
	(c) provision in connection with prohibitions of or restrictions on the use of land imposed for purposes connected with Crossrail;
	(d) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding works at West Drayton Yard, London Borough of Hillingdon;
	(e) works at Old Oak Common Depot, Ilford Depot and North Pole Depot, including realignment of the railway between Old Oak Common and Ladbroke Grove;
	(f) realignment of the railway between Westbourne Park and Royal Oak;
	(g) the footbridge at Westbourne Park;
	(h) the lowering of Eastbourne Terrace and Chilworth Street, City of Westminster;
	(i) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the acquisition of land at Hanover Square, City of Westminster;
	(j) extension of the limits of deviation at Hanover Square, City of Westminster and at Charterhouse Square, Lindsey Street, Hayne Street and Long Lane, City of London;
	(k) an additional ticket hall and other works at Bond Street Station;
	(l) the construction of the works at Tottenham Court Road Station;
	(m) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding a shaft at Fox and Knot Street, London Borough of Islington;
	(n) an additional ticket hall and enhancement of the existing ticket hall at Liverpool Street Station;
	(o) the vertical alignment of the running tunnel beneath Stepney Green, London Borough of Tower Hamlets;
	(p) a train reversing facility at West Ham;
	(q) a barge loading facility at Instone Wharf, London Boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets, including a conveyor for construction purposes;
	(r) alterations to the proposed Isle of Dogs Station;
	(s) alterations to the tables in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 8 to the Bill (disapplication and modification of heritage controls);
	and, if it thinks fit, to make amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes;
	(2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee mentioned in paragraph (1) above is empowered by that paragraph to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if
	(a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period includes any time during which the House is adjourned, or prorogued, for more than four days, not later than five weeks beginning with that day, and
	(b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents;
	(3) that, in its application to Amendments of which the first newspaper notice is published after the date of this Instruction, paragraph 2(a) of Instruction (No. 2) [12th January 2006] shall have effect with the insertion after 'is adjourned' of ', or prorogued,'.
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.[ Mr. Tom Harris.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 9th October, be approved. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	 Division deferred till Wednesday 1 November, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 6, 7 and 8.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Betting, Gaming and Lotteries) Order 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 2685), dated 9th October 2006, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th October, be approved

National Lottery

That the draft Big Lottery Fund (Prescribed Expenditure) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 11th October, be approved.

Immigration

That the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved. [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Voluntary Reduction (modulation) of Direct Farm Support Payments

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10014/06, Draft Council Regulation laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and amending Regulation (EC) No. 1290/2005; and welcomes the voluntary modulation proposal as a means of providing additional funding for rural development programmes in the United Kingdom which will help meet the Government's commitment to sustainable rural development; but supports the Government in wanting to ensure that the voluntary modulation rules operate in a way appropriate to the needs of the United Kingdom. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	 Division deferred until Wednesday 1 November, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Transport Policy

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10954/06 +ADD1, Commission Communication: Keep Europe Moving-Sustainable Mobility for Our Continent-Mid-Term-Review of The European Commission's 2001 Transport White Paper; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on these documents. [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.

POSTAL RECOGNITION OF CHEAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .[Mr. Michael Foster.]

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the opportunity this evening to bring to the attention of the House an issue that has raised passions in my constituency. The issue has resulted in one of the biggest mailbags that I have received in my nine years as Member of Parliament for Sutton and Cheam.
	The issue is about identity, a sense of place and a sense of history. I am talking about the village and old parish of Cheam, which is a place that the Royal Mail has wiped from the map in the name of efficiency and administrative convenience. Before I go into the details of the Royal Mail's bloody-mindedness, perhaps a little history will underline why so many of my constituents and I feel so strongly about Cheam.
	Cheam first shows up in the records in the 6th century, and it has an interesting history. It was recorded in the Domesday Book as the property of the Archbishop of Canterbury, providing sustenance to monks. In the 16th century, Henry VIII built Nonsuch palace. In modern times, His Royal Highness Prince Phillip was educated in Cheam, which is also the fictional home of Tony Hancock.
	To the east of Cheam is Sutton, which has a long history, too. It was only in the 1920s that those two villages in what has become outer London became enmeshed by suburban expansion and growth. Local government reorganisation first united the two villages in the district of Sutton and Cheam and then later in the London borough of Sutton. However, those administrative boundaries have not weakened my constituents' sense of place and their connection to where they live.
	Whether it is Belmont, Cheam, Sutton, Stoneleigh or Worcester Park, people identify closely with where they live. If one lives in Cheam, one does not live in Sutton, but that is exactly what the Royal Mail is saying to Cheam residents and Cheam businesses. The Royal Mail insists that Cheam is part of Sutton, and it insists that people resident in Cheam have a Sutton address, rather than a Cheam one. That edict from the Royal Mail has enraged my constituents. For the past two years, I have been lobbying the Royal Mail on their behalf for a change of heart.
	I hope that the Minister is beginning to appreciate that Cheam is a place with a strong sense of community and a strong sense of its own identity, and I hope that he can help my constituents realise their ambition of recognition by the Royal Mail tonight. There is a distinct and ancient boundary based on the Cheam parish and Cheam ward. Indeed, my proposed boundary, which I have put to the Royal Mail, has widespread support in the local community and has been approved by Postwatch and the local council.
	Thousands of residents have taken part in the campaign to date. They have written to the Royal Mail protesting about the lack of recognition of Cheam, and they have signed a petition calling for Post Office recognition. The  Sutton Guardian, the local paper, has given its backing to the campaign, launching its own Proud to be Cheam campaign. Last Christmas, many local residents supported the campaign by marking their post with labels reading, Proud to be Cheam: Cheam is our Address, and hundreds more will do so again this winter. Even English Heritage has lent its support to my campaign. Its chief executive has described Cheam as a distinctive centre and expressed his regret at the actions of the Royal Mail.
	Despite all that effort on the part of me and my constituents, the Royal Mail has refused to budge. It has held fast to its view that Cheam should labelled as an appendage to its larger neighbour, Sutton. Many Cheam residents have told me how much they resent the fact that the Post Office no longer recognises Cheam as a postal town, on the spurious grounds of operational efficiency. To make a comparison, how would the residents of Hampstead regard a decision by the Royal Mail to insist that they use Camden as their address and that Hampstead no longer exists? How would the residents of Wimbledon feel, if they were told that they live in Morden? I am sure that they would object. They would say, and rightly so, that Wimbledon and Morden are two very different and distinct places which deserve to be treated as such.
	I have been engaged in a protracted correspondence with the Royal Mail trying to persuade it to change its mind and to respect local opinion. In a recent letter, the address development manager, Mr. Brian Davies, told me:
	Although I appreciate your desire to create a post town of Cheam, I am sorry that under our existing Code of Practice I am unable to do this.
	And where is the address development manager based? Is he on hand to draw on his local knowledge of the area? No; he is based 170 miles away in Shrewsbury, which is a long way from Cheam. Perhaps that is for his own good, given how angry my constituents feel about this. Shrewsbury is an ancient town itself, but suppose that I, or some of the residents of Cheam, were to insist that its residents should begin to use Telford as their postal address? I am certain that they would not accept that.
	What logic does the Royal Mail use to justify its stance? To quote Mr. Davies, it is all in the cause of operational efficiency. I pointed out to him that there are 50 towns and villages in England with Sutton in their name. It is a fine name, and clearly lots of people have decided to use it over the centuries to describe where they live, but I believe that using it in this context creates plenty of potential for confusion. Why is the name of the town so critical to the Royal Mail? Surely it is the postcode that counts for operational reasons; after all, the Royal Mail has spent a fortune on encouraging us all to use the postcode.
	I should like to recount the story of one of my constituents who was recently waiting for confirmation of an appointment at the local St. Helier hospital. She became concerned when she did not hear anything from the hospital. Then one day a letter arrived in the post from a lady in Luton with, curiously, the same street name and number as my constituent. In the envelope was a letter from St. Helier, clearly and correctly addressed to my constituent's Sutton home, and complete with a clear and correct postcode. I suppose that Luton does look a bit like Sutton at a glance, but the postcodes are quite different. When first receiving the letter, the Luton lady marked the envelope, Not Luton, but two days later back it came to her.
	The Royal Mail says that adding the word Sutton to the postal address in addition to Cheam reduces confusion. I beg to differ. As I said, there are many places in the UK with Sutton in their name, but there is only one place called Cheam. Indeed, research undertaken by my staff shows that there is only one other place on the planet with the same name: the village of Cha'am in Thailand. I would have to agree with Mr. Davies and his colleagues at Royal Mail that it would be most annoying to have to have one's post redirected from Thailand. However, I think that that may occur rather less often than having it sent to Sutton in Devon, in Bedfordshire, in Oxfordshire or in any one of the other Suttons in this country alone.
	Perhaps if I recount a couple of pieces of Royal Mail logic, the Minister will understand why my constituents and I feel so strongly. The London borough of Sutton has several former villages, each with their own history and character, two of which are Carshalton and Wallington. Both have SM postcodes, but their own post town status. People who live in Wallington can give their address as Wallington without adding Sutton; likewise, those who live in Carshalton are able to use that as their address. When I challenged Mr. Davies of the Royal Mail about that, he was rather taken aback and sought some advice. Of course, being based 170 miles away with no local knowledge does not help someone to answer such awkward questions. He wrote to me thus:
	I promised to seek an answer to the question why both Carshalton and Wallington have post town status when deliveries to the area are from the office in Wallington. I have now received a response from the...Mail Centre Manager for the area, and although he does not know the history behind the areas having post town status the fact that Carshalton is SM5 and Wallington SM6 does assist with the sorting of mail. It was felt that at some point Carshalton and Wallington were individual delivery offices and this would explain why they were given SM5 and SM6 postcodes.
	The answer seems to be that it is an historical anomaly, with the reasons long forgotten. Apparently the Royal Mail can, after all, be influenced by history, but only when it suits it. I fail to see how this historical anomaly can assist operational efficiency.
	I will cite a second piece of Royal Mail logic. Cheam has its high street, as do most towns, including Sutton. However, the Royal Mail has a plan to overcome the confusion between the two high streets. The people of High street, Cheam, are requested to use Cheam in their postal address, and only Cheam, without adding Sutton, thereby creating further confusion. So the Royal Mail can break its own code of practice when it suits it.
	It is time Royal Mail took note of public opinion. The message coming loud and clear from my constituents is this: We are proud to be Cheam; Cheam is our address. It is 'Cheam, Surrey, UK', not 'Sutton', not 'Cheam, Sutton' or anything else the people at Royal Mail might think necessary in their misguided quest for 'operational efficiency.' I hope that the Minister might now appreciate the strength of feeling in my constituency and the strength of the case for Royal Mail to give recognition to Cheam as a postal town. I hope that he can use his good offices to prompt a rethink and a reversal of the Royal Mail's decision.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate and on his campaign. In the short time available, I shall do my best to address his points. I should declare an interest in that when I joined London Fire Brigade in 1974, I did my basic training at Sutton fire station and served my operational time mostly in south-west London, so I have some familiarity with the geography of the area.
	Let me give some background on the massive operation managed by Royal Mail. As we all appreciate, Royal Mail's operations extend into every home and business throughout the United Kingdom. Its operational success is dependent on the efficient use of postal addresses, and particularly of postcodes, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. About 84 million postal items are delivered every day, and almost 1 billion parcels every year. Every house and business in the United Kingdom has been given a postal address by the Royal Mail to meet its obligation to provide a universal postal service. There are 27.5 million addresses and 1.7 million postcodesone for every 15 UK addresses.
	Every delivery point in the United Kingdom has a postal address and customers are encouraged to use Royal Mail's recommended postal address system to avoid delays. Royal Mail specifies an optimum way of addressing post to help its operations. That involves a minimum amount of information required by the company for accurate sorting and delivery. It consists of the addressee's name, the number of the house or its name, the post town and the postcode. The postcode enables small numbers of adjacent properties, and sometimes a single property, to be identified.
	A postcode is used as a sorting and routing instruction, and its sole purpose in the postal context is to help to identify the most efficient route for delivering mail to individual customers. Although you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may use it in a variety of other ways, the fact is that the postcode is all about getting post from A to B. That is what it was designed for in the first place, and that is what it is for. As a result, Royal Mail can report that, last year, over 94.1 per cent. of first-class mail was delivered the next day, against a target agreed with Postcomm of 93 per cent., and that 95.4 per cent. of first-class post was delivered the next day to the residents of Sutton and Cheam. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to join me in congratulating Royal Mail staff on their results.
	The allocation of a postcode to each district and address is linked to Royal Mail's network of sorting and delivery officesits distribution network. Because the delivery office covering Cheam is based in Sutton, Sutton is the post town that sets local postcodes, including those covering Cheam. Sutton has always been the post town in that area, and has always been the basis of local postcodes. However, postcodes were never intended to signify a geographically definitive address by local authority or other administrative boundary. Indeed, postcodes are not a geographically accurate description of where a property is located. A postcode may, as in many cases, relate to a town where the delivery office is situated, which may be several miles away or even in a different county. The post town may even be in a different country, depending on the location of its borders.
	The UK postcode system was developed by Royal Mail in the 1960s to sort mail more efficiently and to cope with population growth and increasing mail volumes. Efficiency is achieved by using the one-line postcode as a shortcut for the full postal address. Mail with a postcode can be sorted more quickly, accurately and efficiently. The alphanumeric combination used in the UK postcode structure has proved robust, resilient and easy for mail users and the public to remember.

Paul Burstow: The Minister is setting out clearly the benefits of the postcode. In doing so, however, perhaps he will reflect on my observation, from my correspondence with Royal Mail, that there are two postal towns, Wallington and Carshalton, delivered to from a post office sorting office in Wallington. If that is the case for them, why cannot it be the case for Cheam?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman has a pointthere does seem to be a minor anomaly. Wallington is a postal town because a delivery office is sited there. Apparently, there was one in Carshalton, and that is why the anomaly exists. He has a fair point in that regard but, on the point that I was making, Sutton is the post town, and that is why Sutton must be on the address.
	Mail with a postcode can be sorted more quickly, accurately and efficiently. Royal Mail continues to develop and maintain high standards of postcode compliance. That has a direct influence on its mail-processing efficiency, its automated sorting systems, address interpretation and optical character recognition machinery function, because addresses are matched against the postcode address file, or PAF. The routes taken by postmen and women across the country were based on the PAF. The Royal Mail's PAF includes other information relevant to a postal address, such as the names of businesses. It is continually updated to reflect changes in postal address information, such as new housing developments, the renumbering of buildings and the renaming of roads. Royal Mail will consider customers' requests for changes to postal addresses.
	In December 2001, Postcomm, the industry regulator, issued a consultation document in which views were sought on a code of practice to govern changes to Royal Mail's postcode address filein effect, to its postcodes and postal addresses. The code of practice was published in March 2002, and it was reviewed a year later. In March 2004, Postcomm published its review, in which the code of practice was further amended to take account of, among other things, a fast-track system of change. That is the current code of practice. A further review of the code of practice will take place in 2008.
	Under the code of practice, changes to the PAF can be made for one of two reasons: to maintain or improve the service offered by Royal Mail, and/or to reflect customer demand. In the first case, Royal Mail can review the way in which it routes its mail to provide a better service. That may be needed as a result of the siting of a new delivery office, the building of a new housing or business development, the renumbering of buildings or the renaming of roads by local authorities. In such cases, Royal Mail reviews existing postcodes and addresses to maintain efficient handling and delivery.
	Under the code of practice, Royal Mail will also consider customer requests for changes to postal addresses. Locality information can be changed if the request is widely supported by customer representatives such as Postwatch, local authorities, parish or district councils and Members of Parliament. An acceptable and clearly defined set of geographical boundary data must be available, and there should not be a significant amount of objection from those affected by the proposed change of address. It is, of course, down to the individual initiating a request to provide the data and obtain the necessary support, as is set out in the code of practice. In such cases, Royal Mail will write to people at all the affected addresses, advising them of the proposed change, and giving the customers who are likely to be affected the opportunity to register concerns or objections. If fewer than 20 per cent. of those affected by the requested change register objections, changes can be made to the PAF with immediate effect under the fast-track system introduced to the code in 2004.

Paul Burstow: I point out to the Minister that we cannot begin the fast-track process because the Post Office will not even countenance consulting its customers on the idea of simply including Cheam and the postcode on the address.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am happy to give way to him because this is his Adjournment debate, but obviously I may not be able to respond to all his points. If I do not, I shall write to him.
	From the briefings that I received in preparation for this evening's debate, it seems to me that the first step, and the obvious way forward, is to secure the appropriate consultation on adding Cheam to the postal address. That would at least half meet the hon. Gentleman's aspirations, because then Cheam could be added to the acknowledged postal addressthat is, the address recognised by Royal Mail for residents in his area. If they wish to drop Sutton from their addressI am not suggesting for a second that they ought to do so, because that may result in a delay in deliveryand include Cheam, there is a mechanism to achieve that, provided that the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate his support, as well as that of Postwatch, the local council and the chamber of commerce. Given the support that he has demonstrated in his local area, that would be a positive first step in the recognition of Cheam as a distinct postal area in Royal Mail's acknowledged address systems. I am happy to discuss that informally with him after our debate.
	If 20 per cent. of people affected by the change raise objections, Royal Mail carries out a poll of all affected households. It is a requirement that 50 per cent. of those households reply for a simple majority in favour to secure the proposed change. Royal Mail aims to conclude such polls and implement any address changes within two months of the ballot being initiated, and it is not averse to making changes to its postal address file. In fact, few requests are turned down for operational reasons. In most cases in which the proposed changes do not progress, the individual requesting the change has chosen not to progress it. Until the end of 2005, of the 154 locality requests received by Royal Mail, 50 related to single postcodes, which were changed after 100 per cent. agreement by residents; 20 covered multi-postcodes that were changed after full consultation; in the remaining cases, Royal Mail offered a change, depending on the necessary support from local representatives and the outcome of the consultation.
	I understand that Royal Mail has agreed to consult on the inclusion of Cheam in the locality information in the postal address, but it will not consider removing Sutton as the post town from the postal address. Changes to post towns obviously affect a large number of addresses and have widespread implications not only for Royal Mail delivery operations but for many householders and businesses. A post town acts as a clearing point for a particular district: it is the basic unit of the postal delivery system and is the place where the delivery office is situated. Cheam has never been a post town. Sutton is, and always has been, the post town. It is where the local delivery office is situated, so it is the post town according to Royal Mail's system of operations. That does not mean that Royal Mail does not recognise Cheam's existenceclearly it does soand it does not take anything away from Cheam's history or the splendid heritage outlined by the hon. Gentleman. It simply means that it is not a post town as recognised by Royal Mail operations. Royal Mail will consider requests for changes to post towns only if an area is recoded to meet an operational need, as clearly elaborated in the agreed code of practice.
	The postcode forms the basis of Royal Mail's distribution network. Any change to postcodes, which are based on post towns, could compromise Royal Mail operations, resulting in poorer service to customers. Royal Mail will consider making changes to the last two characters of a postcode in exceptional circumstances, but its primary concern is to ensure that it can deliver mail efficiently to its customers. It will not, therefore, consider making changes to postal addresses that materially impact on the efficiency of its operations. All of that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is set out in the code of practice agreed with Postwatch and Postcomm.
	The code of practice provides for consultation on any changes to postcodes, as I have outlined. In conclusion, Postcommthe regulatorand Postwatchthe consumer councilhave responsibility for overseeing Royal Mail services. If anyone is concerned about the way in which a request for a change to their postal address has been handled under the code, they should initially pursue clarification with Royal Mail. If they remain unsatisfied, they can pursue the matter with Postwatch, the consumer watchdog, which will consider the case against the code and consult Postcomm if it believes that the code has not been adhered to.
	Royal Mail will consider changes to locality information and, as I have explained, it is willing to do so in relation to Cheam. It does not, however, consider requests for changes to post towns unless an area is recoded to meet an operational need. That is in addition to criteria that must be met before additional locality information can be included in a postal address. Overall, we believe that the code of practice governing changes to postal addresses works. Most importantly, we believe that Royal Mail's postcode system works and is fit for purpose. Postcodes do the job for which they were designedthat is, getting post from A to B.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.